[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          DISAPPROVING MOST-FAVORED-NATION TREATMENT FOR CHINA

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 509, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 373) disapproving the extension of 
nondiscriminatory treatment--most-favored-nation--treatment to the 
products of the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 373 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 373

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
     contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     recommended by the President to the Congress on June 2, 1994, 
     with respect to the People's Republic of China.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will be recognized for 40 
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be 
recognized for 40 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 20 minutes 
of our time, for purposes of control, to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer]. Pending his arrival, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Kolbe] will control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Last year it was claimed that 
conditioning MFN would provide the proper inducement for the Chinese 
Government to clean up its act. but as was so utterly predictable even 
last year, this policy has failed once again. The Chinese Government 
has not cleaned up its act. The regime in Beijing is still repugnant 
and should be unacceptable to all of us as Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this year more than ever--more than ever because of the 
President's failed policy of conditioning MFN, as it was the same with 
his predecessors, Republican Presidents--it is incumbent upon this 
Congress to take action, real action against the Chinese dictatorship. 
We must revoke MFN for China, and we must do it today.
  First and foremost, repression in China has gotten worse, worse since 
last year. According to the highly respected Asia Watch, 1993 was one 
of the worst years in recent memory for human rights in China. Think 
about that. There are more political prisoners languishing in jails and 
in the internment camps than there were a year ago. The year 1994 
continues that pattern.
  Draconian new antireligious laws were introduced in February, and 
just a few weeks ago China issued new regulations which allow 
unprecedented powers of search and arrest for people who are involved 
in--and just listen to these things--``Fabricating rumors, distorting 
facts, publishing or spreading written or oral arguments or spreading 
audio or video products that endanger state security.''
  Mr. Speaker, these Orwellian new laws are not only outrageous, they 
provide a direct refutation to those who on this floor a year ago stood 
here and said that more trade and more business would improve human 
rights in China.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chinese leadership itself has repeatedly taken issue 
with this argument and continues to insist that economic reform will be 
coupled with, of all things, increased political control.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, it is time to bury the failed argument that trading with 
the government-dominated firms of China will improve human rights.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, we have to knowledge that trading with China is a 
net jobs loser for America. Our colleagues, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], 
have done outstanding work in trying to dramatize this issue and bring 
it to this floor.
  Listen to this: Less than 2 percent of our total exports go to China, 
yet 40 percent of China's exports come to the United States. What is 
fair about that? The result of this one-way trade is, of course, our 
massive and ever-growing trade deficit with China, which last year 
reached a record $23 billion. According to the charts offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the deficit will hit $30 billion in 
1994.
  How many American jobs does this trade imbalance destroy, Mr. 
Speaker? And how much military weaponry does it buy for the rogue 
dictatorship in China?
  I will tell you how much. Twenty-two percent more than last year. 
That is right. China has recently announced a 22-percent increase in 
military spending for 1994 on top of a 15-percent increase last year, 
with all of that paid for from revenue received from their huge trade 
surplus with us, the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, think about this: The type of weaponry 
they are buying, listen to this, includes advanced fighter-bombers from 
Russia, air-to-air refueling technology, solid-fuel rocket boosters. 
All of these things clearly suggest a drive by China to project power 
beyond its borders and to improve its nuclear first-strike capability.
  Are we going to go through past history all over again with yet 
another cold war? By granting MFN, we are granting China a built-in 
trade surplus with which China is embarking on a massive and dangerous 
military buildup which could someday threaten the lives of United 
States soldiers.
  I am not going to let that happen, and not one Member of this body 
should.
  Finally, I would just like to talk about China's foreign policy, 
because we are all worried about Korea. I am sure we are going to hear 
the argument today that we need China to help contain North Korea. 
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the Chinese Government has said repeatedly 
that it does not want a nuclear North Korea; and if China does not want 
a nuclear North Korea, that means that China will do what it has to do 
to stop the North Korean nuclear drive, no matter what we do with MFN. 
So the Korea argument is totally irrelevant.
  On the other hand, extending MFN to China has not really brought us 
much Chinese support on North Korea either. Think about that. Show me 
one thing China has helped us with.
  Just 2 weeks after the President extended MFN, China opposed our 
drive to place new sanctions on North Korea. And when President Clinton 
himself tried to call Beijing to lobby them on sanctions, they would 
not even take the American President's phone call. What is going on 
over there?
  Now China has pledged 85,000 troops in support of North Korea should 
Pyongyang attack our ally in the south, where we have 37,000 American 
troops. Are we going to jeopardize those 37,000? If war broke out 
tomorrow, we would lose 10,000 American soldiers in 1 week.
  Of course, I barely need to mention China's totally irresponsible 
nuclear proliferation policies, having provided nuclear arms and/or 
missile technology to Iran, Pakistan, and Algeria, and you could go on 
with a myriad of other countries.
  All of this has taken place in the context of 14 straight years of 
MFN treatment. No, Mr. Speaker, appeasing China does not earn us their 
respect and their cooperation. It earns us their contempt.
  The only thing this regime understands is power, and that is why we 
should utilize our power, the power of the American purse. That power 
is awesome, 260 million Americans with the highest standard of living 
in the world. That power is awesome if we would use it. The U.S. dollar 
is the international currency. English is the international language of 
business. That is why everybody, including the Chinese, want to do 
business with us. They need us.
  But, ladies and gentlemen, we do not need them. It is time for us to 
apply our long-held ideals regarding human rights as well as some 
clear-headed strategic thinking around here, to our relationship with 
this Communist dictatorship whose deadly atheistic philosophy has no 
respect for human rights, indeed, no respect even for human life 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time to revoke China's most-favored-nation 
trade status. We can put it back into effect 6 months from now. If we 
took it away for a while, they would listen.
  If Members vote yes on my resolution, we will send the message that 
America does care about the rights of people who are not being treated 
like decent human beings.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 minutes of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentlewoman from Ohio may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Skaggs). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, after I make a few opening remarks, I will 
yield all of my remaining time to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Matsui], the acting chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from California may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the matter we are debating here is the Solomon 
resolution, which would revoke China's normal, or nondiscriminatory, 
trade status, which the U.S. Government extends to all nations except a 
few completely rogue societies.
  House Joint Resolution 373 was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and after due and deliberate consideration, the Committee voted 
down the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], 31 to 6.
  I would like to turn to a discussion of China and the need for the 
comprehensive China policy that the President announced on May 26 of 
this year. China is a 6,000-year-old society. It was brought into being 
and has existed all of those 6,000 years under standards of behavior 
that are quite different from the standards of behavior that underpin 
our heritage.
  China is not a perfect place to live as far as human rights are 
concerned. This country has, by our standards, serious human rights 
problems. But I believe that the only way to bring China into modern 
society is to stay engaged and to continue pressing Beijing to 
recognize internationally recognized human rights practices. This is 
the approach the rest of the world takes.
  I first traveled to China about 20 years ago. At that time, China was 
in the end stages of the Cultural Revolution, in which apparently 2 
million Chinese were executed by the Chinese Government. Families, 
societies, communities, and institutions were ripped asunder. The 
situation is vastly different today.
  There are some 50,000 Chinese students going to school here in the 
United States. That, in and of itself, is a major step forward in our 
bilateral relationship. I think most of those 50,000 students will go 
back to China imbued with Western notions of freedom, civilization, and 
human rights.
  China, as noted by my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], has a tremendous commercial interest now improving its 
relationships with the West.
  I do not want to see the United States or the rest of the Western 
World retreat back into an era of isolation, with China reminiscent of 
the late 1940's and early 1950's.
  For that reason I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1440

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Skaggs). Under the unanimous consent 
agreements that have been reached, we will alternate now between the 
gentleman from New York, the gentleman from California, the gentleman 
from Texas, and the gentleman one from Ohio.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, once again we debate the difficult issue of how best to 
structure our trade relationship with China, so it fosters the human 
rights goals that we all share. The House will consider three separate 
propositions this afternoon. I strongly oppose the first resolution, 
House Joint Resolution 373, which would terminate China's MFN trade 
status altogether.
  I will also vote against the Pelosi-Gephardt bill, H.R. 4590, which 
would attempt to apply sanctions to half of all Chinese exports to the 
United States. I intend to support the Hamilton bill, H.R. 4891, which 
codifies a policy of aggressively pursuing human rights objectives 
through political and economic engagement with the Chinese rather than 
through linkage to the question of MFN.
  China is in the midst of turbulent political and economic change. The 
process of reform and liberalization is not smooth, but it is 
proceeding.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States can cut off trade relations with 
China, as House Joint Resolution 373 would have us do. Like a gun with 
a single bullet, revoking MFN is a threat that can be carried out only 
once. If House Joint Resolution 373 were enacted into law, relations 
with the Government of China would deteriorate to the point that 
virtually all United States influence would be lost. United States 
businesses would withdraw and I would anticipate United States exports 
to China would be hit with mirror trade sanctions.
  There are over 180,000 U.S. jobs that are directly dependent on 
exports to China, and plenty of these paychecks would be sacrificed. We 
would watch our foreign competitors move into the economic void created 
by this legislation.
  The alternative, which I support, is to continue to be part of the 
change in China so that we can help shape it. To disarm ourselves, to 
withdraw from normal trade relations, abrogates our responsibility to 
the Chinese people, and to the wide range of interests, both economic 
and strategic, that the United States has in this important region of 
the world.
  To achieve human rights objectives, I believe we should reject the 
Solomon Resolution, and adopt the Hamilton substitute which will be 
offered later today.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise, obviously, in support of the Solomon amendment. I just wish 
to comment on one of the previous speakers who indicated that the 
choice today was isolation, if the United States were to opt for the 
Solomon resolution, isolation versus engagement.
  Mr. Speaker, for the record let me say the real choice is neither 
isolation nor engagement, but rather the terms of the engagement, and 
the conditions under which the United States permits goods from 
undemocratic nations, low-wage nations, to come into this market, 
destroying jobs here in the footwear and apparel industries. In all of 
our toy industries; Tonka trucks being manufactured in China today. The 
profits are going to multinationals, Chinese workers are getting very 
low wages, and no Americans are being employed in those professions.
  The same is true with footwear, an industry that has completely 
outsourced to places like China, where workers in those countries make 
10 cents an hour. Companies like Nike Shoes make hundreds of dollars on 
sales of every pair of shoes in this country. Our people do not have 
work in Maine and New Hampshire, Massachusetts and other places. That 
is what this debate is really about today, the terms of engagement.
  Most favored nation means most favorable tariff treatment. In other 
words, lowering all of the equalizers we have had in place for many, 
many years to try to offset those very low wages and undemocratic 
conditions that exist in the far reaches of the world, to try to do 
something to help raise those standards of living as a condition of 
getting into this marketplace and helping our own workers survive in a 
world where the majority of people are low-wage workers in undemocratic 
nations.
  So this debate today is about the terms of engagement.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for 
his true leadership on this, not just from an economic standpoint but 
from a military standpoint as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Stark].
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 373, 
the motion to disapprove most-favored-nation status for China. Last 
year our administration tried to offer China a reasonable way out of 
the annual confrontation on China's trade privileges by signing an 
Executive order laying out conditions that China had to meet.
  Several conditions were absolute and others required a good-faith 
effort.
  China has not met the absolute requirement regarding prison labor 
products, and it has intensified repression in Peking, Shanghai, and 
Tibet and failed to make substantial progress in other areas. It has 
flaunted its disregard for human rights concerns.
  But most troubling, whether or not we are going to engage China in a 
game of Chinese checkers or add China to the rogue nations of Vietnam, 
Iraq, and Libya, China is a major nuclear power and it continues to 
maintain close ties with Pakistan; it is the principal supplier of 
Iran's nuclear technology, training Iranian specialists to help them 
build nuclear weapons; it resists joining international nuclear export 
control organizations, like the Nuclear Suppliers Group. It has sold 
nuclear-capable missiles to Pakistan and short-range missiles to Iran.
  It is the only one of the nuclear weapons states that is not 
observing the moratorium on nuclear testing; two nuclear tests over the 
last year as part of a program to upgrade its nuclear arsenal.
  I do not care how many Burger Kings and Kentucky Fried Chicken stands 
our great industry wants to ship off to China; it will be of little 
concern if they start a nuclear conflagration in the Midwest. And they 
are not helping us impose sanctions on North Korea. And I think if for 
no other reason than to bring them into line, we should support House 
Resolution 373.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, last year Mr. Solomon and I stood before the House and 
we urged that this House reject most-favored-nation status for China. 
We were told that we were going down the wrong track, that if we 
granted them this status, we would see improvement in their trading 
practices, we would see improvement in their human rights record, we 
would see improvement in their nonproliferation record. We have waited 
that 1 year.
  The Human Rights Watch tells us that that situation has worsened in 
that country in the past year. The trading deficit with that country 
has increased from $24 billion to $30 billion a year, second now only 
to Japan.
  And just in the last 2 months, since President Clinton indicated that 
he was going to grant most-favored-nation status to this country, they 
exploded a nuclear bomb in China, the second one this year; the only 
country in the world that is in violation of the global moratorium on 
nuclear testing.
  This on top of everything else we know about them, their long pattern 
of supplying nuclear weapons material to Pakistan, the sale of $4 
billion worth of arms to Iran, $2.2 billion worth to Iraq, $100 million 
worth to Libya, as we appropriate tens and tens of billions of dollars 
to the Persian Gulf, to the Far East, to the Middle East, in order to 
isolate these global problems, tens of billions of dollars.

                              {time}  1450

  The Chinese fuel these global situations with an ever-escalating 
number of weapons. It is time for us to realize that, until we cut off 
most-favored-nation status for this country, they will not respond to 
us. Until we stand up for principle, we will continue to see a 
subordination of the overarching nonproliferation objective which this 
country maintains in its neglect as our highest foreign policy 
objective.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who once again has led the fight 
for human rights in this universe of ours.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by thanking the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for taking the leadership on this issue.
  If I can say a word to the Members on my side, it would be, don't let 
the party of Lincoln, and let me say it again, don't let the party of 
Lincoln adopt a policy of Clinton when it comes to this issue.
  I do not understand what has happened on my side of the aisle. We 
were the party in the 1980's that used to weep and want to work with 
Lech Walesa when we heard the Communist domination that took place 
there, and we know that, when we put sanctions on in a bipartisan way, 
we were successful.
  I ask my colleagues, will you tell Lech Walesa today, if he walked in 
the Chamber, that sanctions don't work? Of course my colleagues would 
not tell him that. They would be embarrassed.
  I saw Members on my side applauding when Vaclav Havel came into the 
Congress and said how important it was that we stood with them. I ask 
my colleagues, will you tell Vaclav Havel today, if he walked in here, 
that you think sanctions don't work?
  I remember when we fought the leadership of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and we beat them finally on Romania. They said sanctions would 
not work in Romania, and we knew that it did work, and, as a result of 
that, Father Calciu got out, and so many Romanian Jews went to Israel. 
In fact, so many Romanian Jews are in the Israeli government now 
providing great leadership. I ask my colleagues, will you tell them 
that it didn't work? My colleagues would be embarrassed to tell them. 
They would be ashamed to tell them.
  What about the Soviet Jews? I remember when we used to come down here 
in a bipartisan way, my side, excited about it, standing with Natan 
Shcharansky, standing with in those days Sakharov and Yelena Bonner. We 
stood with them. I ask my colleagues, would you tell the hundreds of 
thousands of Soviet Jews that now live in freedom in Israel and the 
United States that sanctions don't work? My colleagues would be laughed 
out of Jerusalem. They would think it is foolish because they would say 
that it has worked and, because of that, their families now live in 
freedom.
  To close, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, would you tell Nelson 
Mandela that sanctions didn't work? I changed my vote on that. I was 
wrong the first time I voted. I voted against sanctions, and then I 
thought about it, and I made a mistake. I ask my colleagues, would you 
tell Nelson Mandela today that sanctions did not work? Of course my 
colleagues would not say that. They know they work.
  And my party, this party of Lincoln, the party of human rights, the 
party of freedom, where are we on this issue? We should be with them on 
the Pelosi issue, and we should be with them on Solomon.
  In closing today, Mr. Speaker, I looked at the Bible, and in 
Ecclesiastes 4:1 let me read what it says:

       Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which 
     were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of 
     the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and 
     on the side of the oppressors was power, but they had no one 
     to comfort them.

  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my side, and they have done a good job on 
their side, but I would ask my side:
  This is an opportunity to stand with what Ronald Reagan said of the 
Evil Empire when we stood with Lech Walesa, when we stood with Vaclav 
Havel, when we stood with Nelson Mandela, when we stood with Father 
Calciu, and the Romanian Jews and the Soviet Jews; here is an 
opportunity to stand with the oppressed people that even that side 
would acknowledge terrible things are going on, but the question is 
will we stand with them, will there be a voice for the oppressor. I 
strongly plead for those Members on my side of the aisle; they will 
take care of theirs. Here is an opportunity to do what I believe and my 
colleagues know in their hearts that they believe is the right thing. 
Vote for the Solomon bill and vote for the Pelosi bill so tomorrow 
morning, when they listen to Voice of America in China, they will hear 
the people's House stood with the people of China.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, the House today faces a fundamental 
question of United States foreign policy: How can we best protect all 
of our interests in China when that country is in the throes of a 
significant political and economic transition?
  I urge my colleagues today to adopt a policy that: best serves United 
States interests; takes into account the complex nature of China today; 
and helps bring China fully into the community of nations.


                        Situation in China Today

  All of us agree that China's human rights record is not good. Basic 
freedoms are restricted--freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, 
freedom of the press. Anyone who courageously tries to exercise those 
freedoms in opposition to the regime is punished. Those are the 
negatives.
  On the other hand, liberalization has occurred in China over the last 
decade, largely on the economic front. The Chinese have greater freedom 
of employment, freedom of movement, and freedom of information than at 
any time since the Communists came to power. Those are the positive 
elements.
  So China today is a mix of good and bad.
  China is also a country in transition. Who will succeed Deng 
Xiaoping? That's the key question facing China. The coming leadership 
struggle will determine human rights conditions in China. The question 
for the United States is, how can we best help China decide to uphold 
international norms and join the global community?


                             U.S. interests

  The United States has many interests in China. We are concerned about 
human rights. But we also have security interests. We cannot solve the 
North Korean nuclear problem peacefully without the cooperation of 
China. Our ability to operate successfully in the United Nations 
depends on our relations with China.
  We also have economic interests in China. China is the world's 
fastest growing economy. United States companies last year exported 
$8.6 billion worth of goods to China last year, and billions more are 
at stake in the future as China rebuilds its infrastructure.


                      Confrontation or engagement?

  The question the House faces today is, How do we advance all United 
States interests in China?
  The choice we face could not be starker.
  If we adopt the Solomon resolution, and withdraw most-favored-nation 
status for China, we will choose a policy of confrontation.
  If we adopt the bill offered by Congresswoman Pelosi, and increase 
tariffs for goods produced by the military or State-owned enterprise, 
we will choose a policy of confrontation.
  If we adopt the administration's policy, which is contained in the 
Hamilton substitute, we will choose a policy of engagement.
  Those are the choices, and they cannot be reconciled. We cannot 
engage China while continuing to link trade and human rights.
  A policy of confrontation will not persuade the Chinese to ease up on 
human rights. It will not persuade the Chinese to cooperate more fully 
in stopping on North Korea's nuclear program. It will not serve our 
economic interests. It will not help U.S. companies and U.S. workers. 
It will not give us leverage as China makes the transition into the 
global community.
  I urge my colleagues instead to choose a policy of engagement. We 
want to draw China into a web of cooperation. Engaging China serves our 
economic interests, our political interests, and our strategic 
interests. It will advance the cause of human rights in China. And it 
will make us a key player in the transition now taking place in China.
  I urge the defeat of the Solomon resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 
373, which would disapprove the President's extension of most-favored-
nation trade status to China.
  The intense debate which has taken place in recent years on renewing 
China's MFN status stems from a deep concern over the Chinese 
Government's human rights violations. While I agree wholeheartedly that 
the United States should encourage the Chinese Government to improve 
its human rights record, I disagree with the supporters of House Joint 
Resolution 373 on how our country can best work to achieve this goal.
  There is little question that revoking MFN would send a message of 
condemnation to Beijing. However, by cutting off our trading 
relationship, the United States would relinquish its means to leverage 
the Chinese Government to improve its human rights record.
  Moreover, denying China access to the United States market--the 
largest in the world--jeopardizes the Chinese Government's promotion of 
free enterprise, a policy that Deng Xiaoping has called ``Leninist-
capitalism.'' Clearly, the liberalization of China's marketplace has 
profoundly improved the living conditions of millions of Chinese people 
and this economic freedom is a basic human right that United States has 
fought to protect around the world.
  It is also important that we do not forget what cutting off China's 
MFN status would mean to Hong Kong. Because 68 percent of Chinese 
exports to the United States are shipped through Hong Kong, such harsh 
action would have a devastating impact on its economy. Any threat to 
Hong Kong's prosperity is in effect a threat to the rights and freedoms 
which the Chinese people in that colony currently enjoy. Moreover, the 
continued success of Hong Kong will also ensure that it will serve as a 
powerful force and example in bringing about positive change in the 
rest of China when control of Hong Kong is transferred from Great 
Britain to China in 1997.
  Furthermore, MFN removal would hurt U.S. consumers, particularly 
those in low-income households, by raising prices on Chinese imports. 
At present, China is a major supplier of low-cost shoes, apparel, toys, 
and electronics in the U.S. market. However, if MFN is disapproval, 
these inexpensive goods would be driven from the U.S. market and 
replaced by higher-priced versions from other sources.
  Revoking MFN would also be a disaster to the U.S. business community 
and would place as many as 200,000 direct American jobs at risk by 
giving the Chinese a motive to obtain products from other sources in 
the competitive global market, notably from European and Japanese 
suppliers.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the renewal 
of China's MFN trade status by voting ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 
373.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the previous speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that I have not noticed any of these goods 
coming in from China are any cheaper. Even though it only costs $8 to 
manufacture and ship a pair of Nike shoes from China to the United 
States, Charles Barkley's shoes here cost $139.95 before tax. I haven't 
noticed women's blouses on the racks at our stores are any cheaper 
because they are made in China. In fact, I saw one last Christmas that 
was $99, and I knew the woman who made that in China did not make a 
living wage in that country.
  So I know somebody is making a killing on all of this, and I am glad 
the gentleman mentioned all those middle people in Hong Kong, because 
those are exactly the people paying for the lobbyists in these Halls to 
pass most-favored-nation for China to give advantage to those large 
corporations benefiting off the sweat of those people in China and the 
naivete of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have had it. I have absolutely had it. And 
I have to say that I am fed up as well.
  How many times are we going to come and listen to the many promises 
and goals that the Chinese have made, and how many times are we going 
to hear that each of those promises has been broken one by one by one?
  I was taught a long time ago that we should be rewarding our friends, 
not our enemies. My friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], 
who just spoke, called the human rights situation in China not good. I 
would like to ask unanimous consent to let him revise and extend his 
remarks and instead use the word ``atrocious.'' They had the absolute 
audacity to actually embarrass our Secretary of State on a recent visit 
to China earlier this year.
  How many times have we picked up a newspaper or heard the news that 
the Chinese have continued to ship missiles to the Middle East? And do 
we remember our failed efforts in North Korea not too long ago, trying 
to inspect the nuclear capability of the North Koreans, and it seemed 
as though the headlines almost were as big about what China may veto in 
terms of a simple U.N. resolution of support of what we were trying to 
do.
  This should not be a political vote for any of us. Yes, I am a 
Republican. But, yes, I voted against extending MFN status when 
President Bush was President, and I will do that with President Clinton 
in the White House as well today.
  The Chinese trade surplus has gone from $6 billion in 1989, to $30 
billion in 1993. This bill does not cut off trade, it removes MFN 
status. That is all. Are we not a proud nation, that has some 
principles of decency in terms of what we should be doing today?
  If we are, we should instead vote for the Solomon amendment, and, if 
that fails, vote for the Pelosi amendment afterwards.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose House Joint 
Resolution 373. All of us in this Chamber today share deep concerns 
about the rights and treatment of Chinese citizens. I, too, am very 
cognizant of the continuing problems in China. However, a disapproval 
resolution is not the answer.
  President Clinton's decision was not easily nor hastily made. It was 
made with caution after careful consultation and deliberate 
consideration. The President took a difficult and an important step. 
His intention to extend MFN was accompanied by specific sanctions and 
alternative measures for pursing improvement in China's human rights 
policy. He reiterated his commitment to continue to engage the Chinese 
Government at all levels: economic, political, commercial and cultural. 
Such multi-tiered engagement will provide opportunities for expansion 
of our relationship and influence with China.
  In addition, I believe the President took an important step in his 
commitment to ingtegrate international trade in the strengthening of 
our domestic economy. The volume of United States trade with China has 
grown dramatically in recent years and is expected to surge in the next 
decade alone. China, afterall, is the fastest growing market for United 
States exports. Export opportunity and growth will increase American 
job opportunity and growth--something very important to my State of 
Connecticut.
  Each year we face heated debate on this issue. It has always been my 
fear that if we were to revoke MFN, we would significantly weaken our 
political and economic position with the central government. Change 
must be instituted with care and revoking MFN is not the most effective 
means of doing so.

  After Tiananmen Square, we were all outraged. The gruesome memories 
are still vivid in my mind. Those images rightfully persuaded Members, 
for the first time, to support conditional MFN on the basis of human 
rights abuses. I was one of those Members.
  Past experience, however, has illustrated that the process of annual 
renewal of MFN--a trade statute--is not an effective tool to advance 
improved human rights policy in China. I, too, believe that respect for 
human rights should be an integral component of United States foreign 
policy and vigorously pursued as much with China as it is with hundreds 
of other countries currently.
  Continued trade will help to sustain China monetarily, and 
importantly, it provides a vehicle for the influx of Western ideas and 
values, a strong impetus for reform at all levels of Chinese society. 
Impressive economic growth has had a significant impact on Chinese 
society and its people already. Basic freedoms for Chinese citizens 
have been expanded as a result of rising trade and economic 
liberalization with the United States. I remain assured that the 
President will continue to seek engagement with the Chinese and that 
alternative foreign policy measures will bring about greater results in 
the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I will also oppose H.R. 4590. Sanctions against products 
with ties to Chinese entities will inadvertently harm United States 
companies operating in China. Most of these ties will be severed and 
the welcome mat will be offered to our Japanese, Taiwanese, and 
European competitors. China will likely retaliate especially against 
some of our most visible and valuable exports like aircraft and 
computers.
  H.R. 4590 is harmful, not helpful, to United States-China relations 
and would be detrimental to United States trade. If the threat of 
revoking MFN did not achieve its intended goal, a softer proposal 
surely will not either. I appreciate Congresswoman Pelosi's continuing 
dedication to this issue. However, the circumstances have changed since 
Tiananmen Square and consequently so should our policy. I will oppose 
both House Journal Resolution 373 and H.R. 4590.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm opposition 
to House Journal Resolution 273, introduced by my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and also to H.R. 4950, offered 
by my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. I firmly 
support efforts to improve human rights and lower the trade deficit 
with China. However, the proposals before us will only weaken our 
relationship with China, at a time when we desperately need to work 
with her to reverse North Korea's commitment to nuclear weapons 
development and noncompliance with the nonproduction treaty.
  Furthermore, the proposals before us will ironically weaken the very 
internal forces that will ultimately change China's approach to human 
rights. Terminating MFN or conditioning it would only serve to polarize 
and destabilize Asia at a time when, as a region, it is going through a 
period of highly volatile transformation, a transformation in which not 
only the United States, but the world's community of nations has an 
enormous stake.
  By passing either the Solomon or Pelosi resolutions, we will threaten 
$9 billion in U.S. exports that support 180,000 high-paying export 
jobs. China is the world's largest market for United States computers, 
telecommunications, environmental technology, and civil aviation 
products. But this is not just about trade and American jobs. Our 
manufacturers are doing more to influence change in China than any 
United States policy ever has.

  It is important to note that the Chinese prefer entering into joint 
ventures with United States companies over our European competitors, 
because they know our folks are in it for the long run and they care 
about Chinese workers. Our companies take the time to train Chinese 
managers and employees in western-style management and production 
practices which in turn increases their efficiency. People I have met 
with say they can see the changes occurring on a daily basis and it is 
incredibly exciting to them.
  Pratt and Whitney in my district is applying United States 
environmental and labor standards to its joint ventures in China. Pratt 
has highlighted a number of unsafe conditions to Chinese managers on 
plant walk-throughs that could be hazardous to Chinese employees. The 
managers in turn are learning how important safety is and understanding 
the economic impact of unsafe working conditions.
  United Technologies and Central Connecticut State University have 
established the first joint educational institution in China, where 
they are not only going to be teaching American management techniques, 
accounting, business, things like that, but they are going to be 
teaching things like total quality management.
  What could be more deeply, systematically, fundamentally democratic, 
than the kind of team approach to quality, which is the only way to be 
competitive in modern manufacturing.
  These are exactly the kinds of things that will bring about both 
economic reform and democratization in China. We should be proud of the 
conduct of American companies and organizations and recognize that they 
hold the key to reform in their daily encounters with Chinese citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the Solomon and Pelosi 
resolutions, and allow trade to continue to provide the level of 
people-to-people contact that will reform China and expand jobs in 
America.

                              {time}  1510

  For it is that respect for one another's talents, that fundamental 
individualism and self-respect that comes out of the American approach 
to education that in the end is going to turn around China's human 
rights policy and instill, as it changes economically, the values on 
which democracy depends. I urge my colleagues' opposition to the 
Solomon amendment and, thereafter, the Pelosi amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The Chair advises 
Members controlling time that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] 
has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 
8 minutes remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] has 12 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Inslee].
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon 
and Pelosi amendments. I do this based on principles.
  I would like to talk about some of those principles. It is a 
principle or should be a principle of this body that we do not send 
pink slips to the people we represent and have only to show for it the 
fact that we will feel better here in the U.S. Congress. Because the 
result of the Solomon and Pelosi amendments are jobs, thousands of jobs 
leaving Seattle, leaving Wichita, leaving Cincinnati and going to 
Europe. What will we have to show to our constituents for it?
  We will be able to say that we feel good, that we stood up for human 
rights. We need more than that. We need a policy that follows the 
principle, the second principle that China is not Romania, a country of 
1 billion people with an emerging industrial base is not Romania. It 
should be a principle, and it is a principle, that if we want to affect 
people who are across the chasm, we build bridges to them; we do not 
knock bridges down with wrecking balls.
  This is a principle. It is a principle that we need a clear policy, a 
principle that when we are angry at China, and we are angry at China, 
we do not take out the gun and shoot ourselves in the foot. This 
expresses anger but it does not express good public policy for the 
people that we represent.
  We have a policy that does. The Hamilton amendment, which addresses 
human rights in China, human job rights in this country, and progress 
over the long term rather than feel good politics for us.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Solomon 
motion, House Joint Resolution 373, to the Pelosi substitute, H.R. 
4590, and in support of H.R. 4891, the Hamilton-Kolbe alternative.
  The issue today is not whether we support basic human rights for 
people in China and elsewhere around the globe; we all support those 
goals. The issue is how we promote human rights.
  Threatening to revoke MFN is only effective as a threat if we are 
prepared to accept total disengagement from China. Beyond that simple 
reality is another one: Targeted trade sanctions will undermine our 
national security interests in this area of the world, rapidly growing 
in importance. Let me suggest the following three principles for United 
States-China policy.
  Principle 1: Promote human rights through an unconditional extension 
of MFN.
  That is not a contradiction of terms or of policy; the best foreign 
policy tools available to us to encourage political and civil reform 
abroad are policies that promote capitalism, market reform, and free 
trade. All three are powerful levers for political change, precisely 
because they are powerful mechanisms for economic change.
  Our foreign policy towards China should embrace these tools, not 
condition them. These are precisely the tools we can use to promote the 
evolution of Chinese society so that its people will be able to press 
for political reform from within; they are the tools to stimulate 
Chinese society to adopt a more pluralistic and democratic political 
process. That, in turn, inevitably leads to greater respect for human 
rights and personal liberty.
  The issue involved in revoking MFN or conditioning China trade has 
never been whether or not we condone political repression in China. 
Rather, the fundamental question is this: What action of the United 
States will further democratic reforms in China? Let me suggest to my 
colleagues that we can ill-afford to undermine reform-minded Chinese 
who depend on trade and economic contracts as a means of prying China 
open for political freedom.
  Principle 2: Elevate national security/economic considerations to 
create a more balanced U.S. foreign policy.
  The United States must develop a more balanced China foreign policy 
in order to take into account our national security interests. The cold 
war may be over in Central and Eastern Europe, but in Asia, it is still 
alive.
  Economically, China represents a dynamic, expanding market for United 
States exports in our most competitive, high paying industries. But it 
isn't for selfish, economic reasons we believe continuing MFN is the 
wisest policy we can follow. Rather, I would argue that a trade policy 
that is unilateral, that lacks support of our major trading partners, 
is a policy that will undermine our national security interests.
  Principle 3: Continue foreign policy engagement and utilize other 
measures to support human rights objectives.
  Promoting respect for human rights should continue to be a key 
objective of United States foreign policy toward China. We should 
continue to apply our own as well as use multilateral diplomatic 
preserves to bring about change. We should encourage respect for human 
rights by expanding cultural, academic, political, and business contact 
to share our values.
  Because I support the promotion of human rights, because I support it 
with and through trade, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
House Joint Resolution 373, vote ``no'' on H.R. 4590 and ``yes'' on 
4891.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lantos].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lantos], a very distinguished Member on this 
issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] 
is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my colleagues for 
yielding time to me.
  Someone listening to this debate might think that what is at stake 
here is the principle position, which is the position of defending 
human rights, and the pragmatic position, which is to grant China most-
favored-nation treatment. Far from it.
  This is one of those fortunate situations when the principle position 
and the pragmatic position coincide.
  It turns my stomach that Members who speak about human rights in 
Haiti, Members who speak about human rights violations in Nicaragua, 
and Grenada, and Panama suddenly want to sweep under the rug the 
outrageous performance of this Communist dictatorship against 
believers, against workers, against women, against the whole Tibetan 
people.
  Yes, we know where the principle position lies. The principle 
position lies standing shoulder to shoulder with that young man who 
faced up to the tanks. He faced the tanks alone. He had the courage of 
his convictions, and so should have this body.
  But it is also the pragmatic position to deny most-favored-nation 
treatment to the Communist dictators in China. They are now crazy. They 
know that the essence of their economic development lies in the trade 
surplus they enjoy with the United States, tens of billions of dollars. 
They will not throw that away.
  If we improve sanctions on them, if we deny them the privilege of 
selling tens of billions more to us than they buy from us, they will 
improve their policies. They will change their policies, because they 
are not principled, they are pragmatic. And pragmatism will tell them 
that they have to adjust.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this fight is not a new fight. When 
we stood with Shcharansky and told the Soviet Union they have to open 
the gates, there were those of little faith who said, ``Let us work 
behind the scenes. Let us not make noise. Let us not upset them.''
  When we fought Ceausescu in Romania they said, ``Let us not upset the 
dictator.'' We triumphed every time we stood on principle. There is 
nothing in the Hamilton substitute that does an iota for human rights. 
It is platitudes, empty platitudes and nothing else.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the measure 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and to vote against the 
Hamilton substitute. It is the least this body can do. We must show an 
example to the upcoming generations. We cannot sell our souls for 
short-term dollar gains. We must stand on principle that coincides with 
pragmatism.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott], my distinguished colleague on the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, sometimes when I sit in this body I am 
struck by the sense of history that has gone on in this body. The 
proposition offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] was 
tried once before. At the end of the Chinese revolution in 1949, Mao 
Zedong offered to the United States an opportunity for us to become 
involved with them, to help them develop their country. This country 
adopted the approach offered by the gentleman from New York, that we 
will cut off and we will isolate the People's Republic of China. We 
will bring them to their knees. They will fall. We will have them.
  Mr. Speaker, we watched that for 22 years. The end result, in 1969, 
was that President Nixon, the most unlikely, perhaps, in some people's 
eyes, of Presidents decided that we should reengage the Chinese. He 
opened secret negotiations that lasted for over 2 years before we began 
the public announcement of our relationship with China. It was the 
decision of a very conservative, very anticommunist President that the 
best way to engage with the People's Republic of China was through 
opening the doors of trade.
  Mr. Speaker, that relationship, that agreement that was made at that 
point, certainly was at a time, if we look at China, when there was 
clearly no democracy, not even whiff of it in the air over there. They 
were in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, the most antidemocratic 
period in their history, in recent years, at least.
  What has happened since that engagement is clearly what we intended, 
what we wanted. It was an opening up to our ideas. Their students have 
come here, they have taken back ideas, and gradually that country has 
opened up. We must not adopt the 1949 policy and go back again.
  Mr. Speaker, my view is that to stop this is to say to the people in 
China ``We are going to cut ourselves off from you. We are going to 
stop involving ourselves.'' How will they learn about how democratic 
institutions work if we cut ourselves off as we did in 1949? It did not 
work then, and it will not work now.
  Mr. Speaker, for that reason I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Solomon amendment, and 
regretfully, I am in respectful disagreement with some of the people in 
this body who I respect more than any others.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult question before the House, 
there is no question about that. If we are candid, there are two 
different questions we are asking today. The first is what is the best 
way to advance the economic interests of the United States, our 
people's jobs, markets for our products. The second is what is the best 
way to advance the cause of human rights.
  On the economic argument, it has been pointed out time and again, 
most eloquently by my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], 
that MFN to China costs United States jobs. I have to respectfully 
disagree. The development of China into a capitalist, free market 
economy which is underway today is one of the signal developments in 
the history of the international marketplace. It is going to create a 
market for goods and services that is so vast it is almost impossible 
to comprehend.
  Mr. Speaker, our competitors will not refrain from entering this 
marketplace, and if we do, it will be at the long-term cost of our 
people and our people's jobs.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, with respect to human rights, we have a unique 
opportunity here today, one that I do not believe was in question when 
we discussed the subject of the Soviet Union, or when we discussed the 
subject of Romania, or any of the other examples that have been thrown 
about here today.
  We have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to engage in the formation of a 
free market economy; to have our companies and our workers and their 
companies and their workers engage together to link together in a way 
that could cement the development of the free marketplace. Mr. Speaker, 
this, in my judgment, is the best way to protect human rights and to 
build on the record of human rights in China in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has made a difficult decision. I think we 
should support him today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the 
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], I rise in strong 
opposition to his resolution. I sincerely believe that the most 
inhumane, immoral thing we could do in our relationship with the 
largest nation in the world would be to deny most-favored-nation 
trading status.
  Why is that? Simply because it has been exposure to Western values 
and the king of economic improvement that we have seen in those 
provinces in China, in Kwangtung and Fukien, which have moved toward 
free markets, that have improved the human rights situation in China.
  As we look at the situation there, it came to light just within the 
past few weeks that 80 million people were killed during the Mao era. 
That information did not come out at the time. Why? Because China was a 
completely closed society. It has been since we have seen the opening 
in China that that tragic information has come out.
  Mr. Speaker, If China were a closed society, that kind of activity 
could continue to take place. Eighty million lives could be lost again 
without the rest of the world being aware of it, but today, because of 
the opening that exists, that could not happen in China without the 
rest of the world standing up and doing everything possible to oppose 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, as we look at the changes which have taken place over 
the past 15 years in China, we have to realize that there has been 
great recognition by many people there. One of the most famous 
dissidents, Yangzhou, said ``MFN status helps our economic reforms, and 
in the long run, that will improve human rights.''
  Nicholas Kristof, who was the New York Times bureau chief in Beijing, 
said ``Talk to Chinese peasants, workers and intellectuals, and on one 
subject you get virtual unanimity: Don't curb trade.''
  James Fallows, in an NPR editorial not long ago, and he is a noted 
liberal and the Washington editor of the Atlantic Monthly, said ``To 
carry out the threat to cut off MFN would actually retard the cause of 
human rights.''
  The Progressive Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, said ``The 
best reason to guarantee MFN status for China is that it buttresses 
economic and social forces that are creating demand there in China for 
political change.''
  We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to address the human rights 
situation. The best way to do that is to encourage further United 
States business investment in China, so we can create greater markets 
for our goods and improve the plight of the people of China.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Applegate].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Applegate].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Applegate] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. APPLEGATE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] who was very eloquent in his 
human rights statement and in support of the Solomon amendment. I would 
like to say to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] when it comes to morals, China has broken every law in the 
book.
  Let me just go back to talk about a little different aspect. In 1984, 
President Reagan went to China to talk trade. China opened their doors 
to America, we opened our doors to China. But they got 6 percent of the 
American textile market; we gave them very scientific ways to mine 
their coal and opened up our coal markets to bring Chinese coal to 
knock our miners out of work and they did a lot of other things. But 
what did the United States get? They got 1 billion people who cannot 
afford to buy American products.
  In 1985, the first year after the agreement, the deficit with China 
was $10 million, that is with an ``M,'' folks. Today it is $25 billion, 
with a ``B.'' That is 2,500 times more than in 1984. And to help the 
Chinese in all of this deficit, we gave them most-favored-nation 
status. The United States got the shaft.
  I suppose some Members have read the comic strip Pogo. Pogo said, ``I 
have met the enemy, and he is us.''
  I do not blame the Chinese necessarily for all of our economic 
products and losing our jobs. I do not blame them. It is us, the United 
States.
  It is because of stupid trade policy by the U.S. Congress, this 
administration, and past administrations. China sends their products to 
us, we send our American jobs to China. And China recently even 
threatened the United States in saying that if they do not get most-
favored-nation status, they are going to support the North Koreans and 
at that time North Korea was talking about war.
  Mr. Speaker, are these our newfound friends? Are we to fear China or 
are we to stand up for the American worker? You better start fearing 
the American worker, folks, because the job you save may be your own.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs who has devoted his entire political 
career here to the issue of human rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in May of last year, the 
President of the United States delivered a tough, no-nonsense human 
rights ultimatum to the Chinese dictatorship in Beijing.
  On May 28, 1993, Mr. Clinton said,

       the core of this policy will be a resolute insistence upon 
     significant progress on human rights in China. To implement 
     this policy, I am signing today an Executive order that will 
     have the effect of extending most-favored-nation status for 
     China for 12 months. Whether I extend MFN next year, however, 
     will depend upon whether China makes significant progress in 
     improving its human rights record.

  These mighty and lofty words, from the man who accused former 
President Bush of coddling dictators in China made it crystal clear 
that human rights were at the very core of our policy with the PRC, 
including our economic relationship.
  All who decried the cruelty of the Chinese dictatorship--cheered the 
President's ``resolute insistence on significant progress.'' Hopes were 
high.
  All who empathized with the Chinese victims of forced abortion, 
religious persecution, police torture, gulag labor, and political 
repression were grateful to the President for standing up to the 
tyrants in Beijing.
  For some of us, however, it was discomforting to know that the PRC--
dispite its deplorable human rights record which showed no signs of 
abating--was getting another 12 months of favored trade. But the 
President solemnly promised that future conference of MFN was going to 
be strictly conditioned on significant progress in human rights. We had 
President Clinton's word on it.
  Now we find that the President has broken his word.
  Now we find that our faith--and hope--was vested in a President 
unwilling to adhere to the human rights principles he himself espoused.
  Remember, it was Mr. Clinton who said, ``whether I extend MFN next 
year * * * will depend upon whether China makes significant progress in 
improving its human rights record.''
  Sadly, the human rights record in China is a complete failure. Rather 
than significant progress, 1993-94 has been a period of significant 
regression.
  This spring, President Clinton turned his back on the suffering 
victims--the oppressed--of China. On May 26, 1994, Mr. Clinton betrayed 
those in China who have risked all--including their lives--in their 
fight against injustice, barbarity, and hatred.
  In what is becoming increasingly commonplace in this administration, 
the President flip-flopped on a major foreign policy--and the 
consequence of this reversal will be unspeakable misery for many.
  In delinking human rights with trade in China, the President has 
betrayed millions of Chinese whose expectations were firmly fixed on 
the hope that our country, unlike the others, put human rights ahead of 
profits.
  In a test of wills with Beijing, Mr. Clinton not only blinked, but 
closed his eyes to the plight of million of people.
  My disappointment is with a President who lacks the intellectual 
honesty to stick with the principled core position he aggressively 
espoused. The President said all the right things. And with great 
eloquence. But when his bluff was called by Beijing, he crumbled like a 
cookie.
  China's dictatorship does not deserve MFN. And the burden now rests 
with Congress to take action in support of Mr. Solomon's resolution.
  Forced abortion continues to be employed with impunity against 
millions of mothers in China each year. Forced abortion and involuntary 
sterilization are the means by which the state enforces its draconian 
one-child-per-couple policy. Babies are murdered with poison shots and 
bodily dismemberment and girls are frequently killed at birth or put in 
inhumane asylums.
  In a sworn affidavit, Dr. John Aird, former chief of the China branch 
at the U.S. Census Bureau, said ``coercion in the Chinese family 
planning program has in the past 2 years reached its second extreme 
peak approaching or perhaps exceeding the levels of 1983.''
  Forced abortion is a crime against both women and children. In China 
today, women are punished by the state for conceiving a child not 
approved by state goals. If a woman is lucky or clever enough to escape 
to deliver an illegal child, and is discovered, she is fined and 
harshly dealt with.
  In December the Chinese Government issued a draft of a eugenics law 
which would legalize discrimination against the handicapped--however 
the Government may define handicapped--by forcing sterilization and 
denying them permission to have children. This policy closely parallels 
those laws already enforced in several of China's provinces and is 
eerily reminiscent of the Nazi eugenic program. These are provisions in 
the policy which would mandate the abortion of any babies which are 
determined to not meet government-approved standards of health and 
ability. While the rest of the world moves to protect the rights and 
the dignity of the handicapped, China is seeking more efficient ways to 
exterminate them.
  Religious freedom--always precarious in Communist China--was further 
undermined this year with the issuance of two new sweeping decrees.
  On January 31, Premier Li Peng issued two executive orders which 
further restrain religious liberty in China and will have devastating 
consequences for the underground Protestant and Catholic churches.
  Order 144 is titled ``Rules for management of foreigners' religious 
activities.'' It prohibits all proselytizing activities by foreigners 
among Chinese. While it allows for foreigners to conduct their own 
private worship services, they are prohibited from preaching in Chinese 
churches. It also prohibits the importing of religious goods and 
publications.
  Order 145 regulates management of places of worship. The right to 
assemble, pray, and worship God--even in your own home--carries severe 
punishments. Catch-all statements as ``No one may use places of worshop 
for activities to destroy national unity, ethnic unity, and social 
stability, to damage public health or undermine the national 
educational system,'' criminalizes just about anything that a believer 
says or does. These cruel policies are likely to lead to thousands of 
new arrests, tortures, and mistreatment. All religious believers in 
China are asking for is the ability to worship freely and openly. Right 
now those who do not belong to the government-sponsored churches have 
no place to worship, many of them are denied housing and work permits, 
and countless numbers are harassed, detained, tortured--and some have 
been martyred for their faith.

  The Chinese Laogai is not like any prison system we are familiar 
with. These are forced labor camps similar to the Nazi work camps of 
another era. It is the most extensive forced labor system in the world, 
and this system has destroyed the lives of millions of people, and it 
continues to do so. In January, during a human rights trip to China, I 
met with several people who bear the permanent scars of years in 
Chinese prison labor camps. I heard their stories of beating and 
torture and saw for myself the broken bodies which these camps created.
  Recently, Harry Wu, himself a veteran of the Chinese prison labor 
system, returned from China where he risked his life to document the 
continued use of prison labor used to manufacture products for export--
much of it for export to the United States. The 1992 MOU, a flawed 
agreement from the beginning, calls for prompt investigation of any 
claims that forced labor products were being exported to the United 
States. Customs and State Department officials have said that the 
Chinese have done nothing promptly. A new agreement, signed in March, 
allows the Chinese a full 60 days from the time the United States asks 
for an investigation to allowing an investigation. That is enough time 
not only to clean up the prisons but to outfit them with karaoke 
nightclubs.
  Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Puebla Institute 
have all issued reports detailing the renewed repression of religion, 
listing priests, ministers, monks, and nuns who are imprisoned or under 
some other type of detention. All of them have said that religious 
repression has gotten worse in this past year, and especially since 
January. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record a list of priests, 
ministers, nuns, and lay workers as a living tribute to these men and 
women who refuse to compromise their faith.
  Of the nearly 1,500 prisoners of conscience listed by Human Rights 
Watch, only a small fraction have been released, and little new 
information has been obtained. And this list of 1,500 prisoners is only 
a fraction of those who are victims of the Chinese prison system.
  China's dictatorship doesn't deserve MFN. Consider this contrast, Mr. 
Speaker. As we debate this issue, our ships are steaming off Haiti with 
combat soldiers poised to topple the cruel dictatorship in Haiti. 
Meanwhile, President Clinton is coddling another dictatorship--a far 
more dangerous, crueler, and meaner dictatorship in Beijing. Support 
the Solomon resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following list:

    Imprisoned, Detained, or Persecuted Catholics, Protestants, and 
         Buddhists in the People's Republic of China and Tibet

  (Source: Amnesty International, The Cardinal Kung Foundation, Human 
  Rights Watch/Asia, The International Campaign for Tibet, The Puebla 
                              Institute.)


                               catholics

       1. Bishop Johannes Han Dingxiang: 57 years old. Vicar 
     General of Handan diocese, Hebei province. Seized by Public 
     Security Bureau officials on November 18, 1993, after 
     celebrating Mass, and now administratively detained. 
     Previously arrested December 26, 1990, and detained without 
     trial, reportedly in an indoctrination camp in Handan. 
     Released, reportedly some time in 1993, but his movement was 
     severely restricted until his re-arrest. He had been arrested 
     four other times previously, and was imprisoned from 1960 to 
     1979.
       2. Auxiliary Bishop Shi Hongzhen: of Tianjin, Hebei 
     province. As of November of 1993, activities severely 
     restricted; one report said he must return to home village 
     every night, while a second reported that he is under house 
     arrest.
       3. Bishop Joseph Li Side: Bishop of Tianjin diocese, Hebei 
     province. In his 60's. Arrested on May 25, 1992. Exiled in 
     July 1992 to rural parish of Liangzhuang, Ji county, which he 
     is forbidden to leave. According to most recent report, held 
     under a form of house arrest on top of a mountain. Previously 
     detained several times, including 1989, when he was arrested 
     for his role in an underground episcopal conference and 
     reportedly tried in secret.
       4. Bishop Fan Yufei: 60 years old. Bishop of Zhouzhi, 
     Shaanxi province. Arrested around Easter 1992 while 
     celebrating Mass; transferred September 1992 to a form of 
     house arrest. Eight priests arrested with him, since 
     released, were subjected to forced indoctrination while in 
     detention.
       5. Bishop Lucas Li Jingfeng: 68 years old. Bishop of 
     Fengxiang. Shaanxi province. Following authorities' 
     ``invitations'' to ``study'' in April 1992, placed under 
     house arrest. Now restricted to his church in Fengxiang. 
     Health reportedly very poor.
       6. Bishop Joseph Fan Zhongliang: Bishop of Shanghai. 73 
     years old. Arrested June 10, 1991, reportedly in response to 
     the Vatican's elevating another Chinese bishop, Gong Pinmei, 
     to cardinal. On August 19, 1991, transferred to a form of 
     house arrest in Shanghai. Forbidden to leave Shanghai and is 
     kept under surveillance. Police have not returned church and 
     personal property seized from him at time of his arrest. 
     Previously imprisoned for his faith between 1957 and 1982.
       7. Bishop John Baptist Liang Xishing: Bishop of Kaifeng 
     diocese, Henan province. Born in 1923. Arrested in October 
     1990 for ``illegal religious activities.'' He was released, 
     reportedly in February 1991, but remained under police 
     surveillance until his ``disappearance: and presumed rearrest 
     on 18 March 1994. Details on his arrest and the location of 
     his detention are unknown.
       8. Bishop Vincent Huang Shoucheng: Bishop of Fu'an. Fujian 
     province. Arrested in an unspecified location on July 27, 
     1990. Remained in detention until June 1991. Now restricted 
     to home village.
       9. Bishop Mark Yuan Wenzai: Bishop of Nantong, Jiangsu 
     province. 69 years old. After period of detention, placed 
     under custody of local CPA bishop, Yu Chengcoi, in July 1990, 
     and forced to live at church in Longshan.
       10. Bishop Huo Guoyang: Bishop of Chongqing, Sichuan 
     province. Arrested early January 1990, for participation in 
     underground episcopal conference and detailed until early 
     1991. Now under police surveillance in Chongqing City, 
     Sichuan.
       11. Bishop Mathias Lu Zhensheng: Bishop of Tianshui, Gansu 
     province. Born January 23, 1919. Arrested in late December 
     1989, in connection with underground episcopal conference; 
     released some time afterward, possibly April 26, 1990, as a 
     result of poor health. Now restricted to home village. Served 
     a previous prison term for ``counter-revolutionary 
     activities.''
       12. Bishop Guo Wenzhi: Bishop of Harbin, Heilongjiang 
     province. Born January 11, 1918. Most recent arrest on 
     December 14, 1989, in connection with underground episcopal 
     conference; released in March 1990 to home village in 
     Qiqihar, which he is forbidden to leave. Remains under strict 
     police surveillance.
       13. Bishop Jiang Liren: 80 years old. Bishop of Hohhot, 
     Inner Mongolia. Arrested, possibly in November or December 
     1989, in connection with underground episcopal conference. 
     Reportedly imprisoned until April 1990, when transferred to 
     house arrest. Now confined to his home village and under 
     police surveillance.
       14. Bishop John Yang Shudao: Bishop of Fuzhou, Fujian 
     provinced. Most recent arrest on February 28, 1988, in 
     Liushan Village, Fujian. Transferred to house detention in 
     February 1991. Restricted to home village and under close 
     police surveillance. Previously arrested for his faith at 
     least once.
       15. Bishop Casimir Wang Milu: 55-year-old Bishop of 
     Tianshui diocese, Gansu province. Arrested April 1984 for 
     counter-revolutionary activities, including ordaining priests 
     (after his own secret consecration as bihop by Bishop Fan 
     Xueyuan in January 1981), having contact with the Vatican and 
     other Chinese Roman Catholics, and criticizing government 
     religious policy and the Catholic Patriotic Association. 
     Sentenced 1985 or 1986 to ten years' ``reform through labor'' 
     and four years' deprivation of political rights. Imprisoned 
     for a time at labor camp in Pingliang, Gansu and then 
     transferred to a labor Camp near Dashaping in Lanzhou. 
     Released on parole April 14, 1993, he remains under 
     restrictions of movement. Previously imprisoned for his 
     faith during the Cultural Revolution.
       16. Father Liu Jin Zhong: Priest of Yixian, Hebei province. 
     Arrested February 24, 1994, while celebrating Mass. Detained 
     in Gu An Xian.
       17. Father Wei Jingyi: 36 year-old Secretary of underground 
     Bishop's Conference. Arrested January 20, 1994, with Bishop 
     Su Zhimin of Baoding, Hebei province allegedly for his work 
     in the Bishop's Conference and for meeting with a delegation 
     headed by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). Bishop Su was 
     released January 29, 1994, but Father Wei remains in 
     detention in an unknown location and reportedly is being held 
     in shackles. Arrested twice before for religious reasons and 
     served a total of five years in prison. Father Wei's 
     ordination has not been recognized as valid by the official 
     Catholic Patriotic Association.
       18-19. Fathers Mao Lehua and Guo Xijian: Priests of Fuan, 
     Fujian province. Arrested December 16, 1993, with four nuns 
     and three deacons as they were celebrating Mass in a private 
     house. Father Mao has reportedly been released on bail, but 
     Father Guo remains in detention.
       20. Father Chu (Zhu) Tai: Priest from Zhangjiakou city, 
     Hebei province. Arrested November 1993 while celebrating 
     Mass. Sentenced to one year of reform through labor. Serving 
     sentence in Zhangjiakou, Hebei province.
       21. Father Yan Chong-Zhao: Priest of Handan diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested September 1993 for refusing to renounce 
     his ties to the Vatican and join the Catholic Patriotic 
     Association. Now detained in Guangping county.
       22. Father Zhang Li: Priest from Zhangjiakou city, Hebei 
     province. Arrested November 1993 along with another priest 
     whose name is not known and sentenced to three years 
     reeducation through labor at a detention center in 
     Zhangjiakou City. Previously arrested November 1, 1991 
     (another source says July 1992), while celebrating Mass. He 
     was sentenced to three years of reform through labor and 
     reportedly released March 1993.
       23. Father Zhou Zhenkun: Priest of Dongdazhao Village, 
     Baoding, Hebei province. Arrested December 21, 1992, by 
     Public Security Bureau, with Deacon Dong Linzhong in pre-
     Christmas raid on Baoding area. No other information 
     available.
       24. Father Liao Haiqing: Priest of Fuzhou, Jiangxi 
     province. 63 years old. Arrested, reportedly while 
     celebrating Mass, on August 16, 1992. Chinese authorities 
     reported in March 1993 that he had been released, but this 
     has not been independently confirmed. Previously arrested and 
     imprisoned several times, most recently in November 1981. 
     After serving nearly all of a ten-year term, released July 
     1991.
       25. Father Wang Danian: Arrested in June or July 1992 in 
     Suzhou, Jiangsu, with two nuns (since released). Accused of 
     performing illegal missionary work. Not known to have been 
     released.
       26. Father Liu Heping: 28 years old. Most recent arrest on 
     December 13, 1991, at his home in Shizhu village, Dingxing 
     county, Hebei province. Reportedly being held without trial; 
     according to another report, has been transferred to house 
     arrest.
       27. Father Ma Zhiyuan: 28 years old. Arrested on December 
     13, 1991, at Houzhuang, Xushui County, Hebei province. All 
     believed in administrative detention.
       28. Father Xiao Shixiang: Priest of Yixian diocese, Hebei 
     province. 58 years old. Arrested December 12, 1991 for 
     leading a religious retreat. Reportedly being held without 
     trial; according to another report, has been transferred to 
     house arrest.
       29. Father John Wang Ruowang: Priest from the Tianshui 
     diocese, Gansu province. Disappeared on December 8, 1991, 
     while caring for dying Bishop Li Zhenrong. No longer 
     detained, but under restrictions of movement and police 
     surveillance. Arrested December 1989 with his brother, Father 
     Wang Ruohan, for participation in underground episcopal 
     conference; served one year of ``reeducation through labor.''
       30. Father Peter Cui Xingang: Parish priest at Donglu 
     village, Quingyuan county, Hebei province. 30 years old. 
     Arrested July 28, 1991, and held without trial. Current 
     whereabouts unknown.
       31. Father Gao Fangzhan: 27 years old. Priest of Yixian 
     diocese, Hebei province. Arrested in May 1991 outside Shizhu 
     Village in Dingxing County. Being held without trial.
       32. Father Wang Jiansheng: 40 years old. Arrested May 19, 
     1991; sentenced to three years of reeducation through labor. 
     Imprisoned in Xuanhua Reeducation Through Labor Center in 
     Hebei province. Chinese authorities reported in March 1993 
     that he had been released, but he had not been seen at home 
     as of October 1993.
       33. Father Chen Yingkui: Priest of Yixian diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested in 1991 and reportedly sentenced to three 
     years' reeducation through labor. Reportedly imprisoned in 
     Gaoyang county, Hebei.
       34. Father Xu Guoxin: Priest of Langfang diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested in 1991 and sentenced to three years' 
     reform through labor.
       35. Father Li Xinsan: Priest of Anguo diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested in December 1990 or early 1991. Sentenced 
     of three years' reform through labor. Detained in a labor 
     camp in Tangshan, Hebei. Chinese authorities reported in 
     March 1993 that he had been released, but had not returned 
     home as of October 1993.
       36. Father An Shi'an: Vicar-general of Daming diocese, 
     Hebei province. Born 1914. Arrested late December 1990 and 
     detained without charge or trial in a Handan indoctrination 
     camp. Released December 21, 1992, but whereabouts are not 
     known. Believed to be under restrictions of movements.
       37. Father Peter Hu Duoer: 32 years old. Arrested by Public 
     Security Bureau personnel at Liangzhuang Village, Xushi 
     County, on December 14, 1990. Being held without trial.
       38. Father Joseph Chen Rongkui: 28 years old. Arrested 
     December 14, 1990, at the Dingxian train station in Hebei 
     province. Being held without trial.
       39. Father Paul Liu Shimin: 32 years old. Arrested December 
     14, 1990, in Xiefangying, Xushui county, Hebei province. 
     Being held without trial.
       40. Father Li Zhongpei: Arrested in December 1990 and 
     sentenced to three years of reeducation through labor. 
     Imprisoned at Tangshan Reeducation Through Labor Center in 
     Hebei province. Chinese authorities reported in March 1993 
     that he had been released, but he had not been seen home as 
     of July 1993.
       41-44. Fathers Liu Guangpin, Zhu Ruci, Zou Xijin, and Xu: 
     Priests of Fu'an, Fujian province. All arrested July 27, 
     1990, at Luojiang Church in Fu'an for violating government 
     religious policy. Currently imprisoned. According to one 
     report, Father Zhu has been transferred to house arrest.
       45-47. Fathers Guo Quishan, Guo Shichun, and Guo (given 
     name not known): Priests of Fu'an, Fujian province. All 
     arrested July 27, 1990 for violating government religious 
     policy. All three released for health reasons in August 1991. 
     Now under house arrest.
       48. Father Pei Guojun: Priest of Yixian diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested and imprisoned between mid-December 1989 
     and mid-January 1990 in connection with underground episcopal 
     conference in Shaanxi province. No recent news.
       49. Father Shi Wande: Priest of Baoding diocese, Hebei 
     province. Arrested December 9, 1989, in Xushui, and 
     reportedly imprisoned. No recent news.
       50. Father John Baptist Wang Ruohan: Priest from Tianshui 
     diocese, Gansu province. Arrested December 1989 with his 
     brother, Father Wang Ruohan, for participation in underground 
     episcopal conference; served one year of ``reeducation 
     through labor.'' Under restrictions of movement.
       51. Father Pei Zhenping: Priest of Youtong village, Hebei 
     province. Arrested October 21, 1989, and imprisoned. Chinese 
     authorities reported in March 1993 that he had been released, 
     but not seen at home as of October 1993.
       52. Father Wang Yiqi: Priest of Fujian province. Reportedly 
     arrested in Liushan village, Fujian province, on February 28, 
     1988. Reports of his release have not been confirmed.
       53. Father Francis Wang Yijun: Vicar General of Wenzhou 
     dioceses, Zhejiang province. 75 years old. Arrested May 19, 
     1982, and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Immediately 
     upon his release in March 1990, he was sentenced to an 
     additional three years' ``reform through labor'' for 
     ``stubbornness'' and ``refusing to repent.'' Released from 
     prison May 21, 1992; remains under restrictions of movement 
     and association.
       54. Father Joseph Guo Fude: Member of the Society of the 
     Divine Word. 69 years old. Most recent arrest and 
     imprisonment in spring 1982. As of late 1986, interned in a 
     labor camp in southern Shandong; according to unconfirmed 
     reports, since transferred to house arrest and/or strict 
     police surveillance. No recent news.
       55. Father Joseph Jin Dechen: Vicar General of Nanyang 
     diocese, Henan province. 72 years old. Arrested December 18, 
     1981, reportedly for opposition to abortion and birth 
     control. Sentenced July 27, 1982, to 15 years in prison and 
     five years subsequent deprivation of rights. He reportedly 
     was held at the Third Provincial Prison in Yuxian, Henan 
     province. Released on parole May 21, 1992. He since has been 
     confined to home village of Jinjiajiang, where he remains 
     under restrictions of movement and association. He reportedly 
     is in poor health.
       56. Father Fu Hezhou: 68 years old. Arrested and imprisoned 
     November 19, 1981. Reportedly since transferred to house 
     arrest and/or strict police surveillance. No recent news.
       57. Father Zhu Bayou: Priest of Nanyang diocese, Henan 
     province. Arrested in the early 1980s and sentenced to 10 
     years for leading Roman Catholics on pilgrimage to Sheshan. 
     Released on parole at unspecified date. Now restricted to 
     village of Jingang, Henan.
       58. Father Lin Jiale: Reportedly imprisoned in Fuzhou, 
     Fujian province. No other information available.
       59. Father Liu Shizhong: Reportedly imprisoned in Fuzhou, 
     Fujian. No other information available.
       60. Father Fan Da-Dou: Priest of Beijing diocese. Under 
     house arrest for several years. Not permitted to administer 
     sacraments.
       61. Father Li Jian Jin: Of Han Dan in Hebei Province, 28 
     years old, was arrested the afternoon of 4 March 1994 while 
     celebrating Mass in the home of a lay Catholic. Reportedly 
     ``more than ten'' fully armed security police participated in 
     the raid, beating Father Li, handcuffing him and taking him 
     away. Several of those present for the Mass also reportedly 
     were beaten, and the police confiscated the Eucharists 
     consecrated for distribution at Mass.
       62. Father Lu Dong Liang: of Feng Feng Shi, Dong Ging Liu 
     in Hebei Province was arrested sometime before Easter Sunday 
     while celebrating Mass. Five men and six women attending the 
     Mass also reportedly were arrested. No further information is 
     available about their cases.
       63. Father Su De-Qien: Priest of Tianjin diocese, Hebei. 
     Required to report to PSB once a month. Has been prevented 
     since Christmas 1993 from administering sacraments.
       64. Deacon Ma Shunbao: 42 years old. Arrested November 6, 
     1991, in Hebei province. Detained without trial.
       65. Deacon Dong Linzhong: Of Dongdazhao Village, Baoding, 
     Hebei province. Arrested December 21, 1992, by Public Safety 
     Bureau, with Father Zhou Zhenkun. No other information 
     available.
       66. Ji Xiaoshang: Arrested in June 1992 in connection with 
     funeral of Bishop Fan Xueyan. Six others arrested between 
     April and June 1992 for same reason have since been released; 
     no recent news on Ji.
       67. Zhang Guoyan: 35 years old. Layman from Baoding, Hebei 
     province. Sentenced in 1991 to three years of reeducation 
     through labor for refusing to join CPA. Chinese authorities 
     reported in March 1993 that he had been released, but had not 
     been seen at home as of October 1993.
       68. Wang Tongshang: Deacon and community leder in Baoding 
     diocese, Hebei province. Arrested December 23, 1990, and 
     sentenced to three years of reeducation through labor. Now 
     serving prison term in Chengde Reeducation Through Labor 
     Center in Hebei. Chinese authorities reported in March 1993 
     that he had been released, but this has not been 
     independently confirmed.
       69. Zhang Youzong (or Youzhong). Lay Catholic arrested in 
     December 1990 or early 1991 and reportedly sentenced to three 
     years' imprisonment. Chinese authorities reported in March 
     1993 that he had been released, but this has not been 
     independently confirmed.
       70. Wang Jingjing: Layman of Fujian province. Arrested 
     probably on February 28, 1988, in Liushan Village. Reportedly 
     released, but this has not been independently confirmed. No 
     recent news.
       71. Father Vincent Qin Guo-Liang. 59 years old. Secretly 
     ordained a priest in 1986. Arrested May 1984 in Xi-Ning, 
     Qinghai province. Previously arrested in 1955 and imprisoned 
     for 13 years. Then transferred to No. 4 Brick factory in Xi-
     Ning where he was detained for another 13 years. After his 
     release he was unable to obtain employment and was forced to 
     return to the brick factory to work until his arrest in May. 
     Currently being held in a labor education camp in Xi-Ning, 
     Qinghai Province.
       72. Father Li Xhi-Xin. Arrested March 29, 1994. Currently 
     held in a labor education camp in Xi-Ning, Qinghai Province.
       73. Wang Dao-Xian. Lay leader. Arrested April 21, 1994. 
     Currently being held in a labor education camp in Xi-Ning, 
     Qinghai Province.


                              protestants

       1. Pan Yiyuan: 58 years old. House-church Protestant of 
     Zhangzhou, Henan province. Arrested February 2, 1994, and 
     charged with ``rejecting and refusing to join the official 
     Three-Self Protestant Movement,'' ``possessing reactionary 
     Christian printed matter from overseas,'' ``involvement with 
     overseas Christian organizations,'' and ``contacting 
     Christians in China and opposing the government's religious 
     policies.'' Now detained, reportedly in Zhangzhou Detention 
     Center. Not permitted visits by his wife. At time of arrest, 
     police confiscated personal letters, diaries, religious books 
     and tapes, bibles, and other personal belongings, from his 
     home. Previously arrested for religious reasons in 1990.
       2. Xu Birui: 83 years old. Mother of Pan Yiyuan. 
     Interrogated February 2, 1993, at time of son's arrest. 
     Reportedly under house arrest and interrogated daily about 
     religious activities.
       3. Lin Zilong: 80 years old. A district leader of 
     ``Shouters'' sect, which is outlawed by Chinese government, 
     from Fuqing city, Fujian province. Arrested December 23, 
     1993, with He Xiaxing and Han Kangrui, by Public Security 
     Bureau officials. Reportedly arrested twice before for 
     religious reasons; served over seven years in prison 
     following arrest in 1983.
       4. He Xiaxing: 53 years old. Member of ``Shouters'' sect. 
     From Fuqing city, Fujian province. Arrested December 23, 
     1993, and reportedly detained in Jiangjing town detention 
     center.
       5. Han Kangrui: 48 years old. Member of ``Shouters'' sect. 
     From Fuqing city, Fujian. Reportedly now detained in Longtian 
     town detention center.
       6. Xu Fang: 21 years old. Femal house-church Protestant 
     from Ankang county, Shaanxi province. Arrested September 1993 
     with about 24 other Protestants by police seeking to discover 
     who had provided information to West about brutal March 1993 
     attack on Shaanxi Protestants, including Mai Lanping, who 
     died as a result of torture. Most of twenty-five arrested 
     have since been released, but Xu and at least five others 
     remained in detention as of late January 1994.
       7. Li Haochen: A house-church preacher from Sanyi township, 
     Mengcheng county, northern Anhui province. Arrested in March 
     1993 for organizing a ``healing crusade'' and held until 
     June; rearrested in September 1993 and charged with counter-
     revolutionary crimes. Originally thought to have been given a 
     one year sentence, but later reports placed the sentence at 
     three years' reform through labor. Originally held in 
     Mengcheng county prison, Li's current whereabouts are 
     unknown. A second 45-year-old woman, whose name is unknown, 
     was arrested at the same time, reportedly for refusing to 
     close her house church. This second woman subsequently was 
     sentenced to a two year term in a reeducation through labor 
     camp at a unknown location.
       8. Ge Xinliang: 27-year-old farmer and house-church 
     preacher from Yuefang township, Mengcheng county, northern 
     Anhui province. Arrested August 25, 1993, one day after 
     holding a prayer meeting in Simen Village, Qin Zhuang, which 
     was attended by over 100 people. Charged with ``disturbing 
     the public order'' and accused specifically of organizing 
     others to listen to religious radio broadcasts from Hong 
     Kong; receiving Bibles from abroad; and holding a preachers' 
     training class for about 60 people between December 31, 1992 
     and January 5, 1993. Sentenced without trial to two years' 
     reform through labor by the Fuyang Prefectural Labor 
     Reeducation Administrative Committee.
       9. Dai Guillang: 45 years old. House-church preacher from 
     Yuefang township, Mengcheng county, northern Anhui province; 
     and
       10. Dai Lanmei: 27-year-old female house-church preacher 
     from Yuefang township, Mengcheng county, northern Anhui 
     province. Both arrested August 25, 1993, with Ge Xinliang 
     (above) and sentenced without trial to three and two years' 
     reform through labor, respectively, by the Fuyang Prefectural 
     Labor Re-education Administrative Committee. The official 
     sentences for all three preachers accused them of 
     ``conspir[ing] together, using their belief in the `Spiritual 
     Trust' sect to proclaim that the tribulation was coming, thus 
     causing believers to stop participating in production.'' All 
     three reportedly detained in Xuancheng Labor Camp in Anhui 
     province.
       11. Guo Mengshan: 41 years old. House-church preacher from 
     Wangdian (or Wangding) township, Lixin county, in northern 
     Anhui province. Arrested July 20, 1993, with
       12. Liu Wenjie and
       13. Zheng Lanyun, both house-church preachers. All three 
     accused of conducting ``New Believers' Edification'' classes 
     for five days in rural area of Dafeng. Guo Mengshan held 
     without charge under ``shelter and investigation' procedure 
     for over three months and then administratively detained 
     without trial on 11 October 1993 to three years' reform 
     through labor for `itinerant preaching.'' Sentences of Lin 
     and Zheng unknown. After detention in Mengcheng county 
     prison, all three reportedly detained in Xuancheng Labor 
     Camp, Anhui province.
       14. Zhang Jiuzhong: House-church preacher from Jiwangchang 
     township, Lixin county, northern Anhui province. Arrested in 
     1993 for ``illegal'' religious activity. Sentenced in October 
     1993 to two years' reform through labor.
       15-17. Xhang Lezhi, Yan Peizhi, and Xu Zhihe: 32, 35, and 
     50 years old respectively. Protestants from Shandong province 
     belonging to New Testament Church. Arrested September 1992; 
     sentenced December 1992 to three years' reeducation through 
     labor for ``illegal'' religious activities, including 
     membership in banned New Testament Church. Now detained in 
     Chang Le County labor camp. At time of their arrest, PSB 
     officials confiscated religious literature and personal 
     belongings from them. Following his arrest, Zhang was 
     tortured with electric batons, chained, and beaten.
       18. Zheng Yunsu: Leader of popular Jesus Family religious 
     community in Duoyigou, Shandong province. Arrested in June 
     1992 with thirty-six other community members, including his 
     four sons. Their arrest is thought to be in part the result 
     of the community's May 1992 efforts to prevent security 
     forces from tearing down their church. The elder Zheng was 
     charged with holding ``illegal'' religious meetings, 
     ``leading a collective life,'' disturbing the peace and 
     resisting arrest. Sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. 
     Thought to be held at the Shengjian Motorcycle Factory labor 
     camp near Jinan city. Other community members received 
     sentences of five years (another source says three). PSB 
     officials raiding church compound in June 1992 leveled the 
     church and confiscated personal property.
       19. Zheng Jiping. Eldest son of Zheng Yunsu. Arrested June 
     1992 in raid on Jesus Family religious community and 
     sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. Held in an unknown 
     location.
       20. Zheng Jikuo: Third son of Zheng Yunsu. Arrested June 
     1992 in raid on Jesus Family religious community and 
     sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. Held in an unknown 
     location.
       21-22. Zheng and Zheng (given names unknown). Sons of Zheng 
     Yunsu. Arrested June 1992 in raid on Jesus Family religious 
     community. Sentenced to five years' imprisonment at unknown 
     location(s).
       23. Xie Moshan (``Moses Xie''): A house-church leader from 
     Shanghai in his early 70s, he was arrested 24 April 1992 on 
     charges of ``conducting illegal itinerant evangelism.'' and 
     released 23 July 1992. His movement is severely restricted 
     and he is required to report periodically to local Public 
     Security Bureau. His mail is regularly intercepted and read 
     by local authorities.
       24. Chen Zhuman: 50-year-old member of New Testament Church 
     in Fujian. Arrested December 14, 1991. Tortured and beaten by 
     police at Putian County Detention Center, he reportedly was 
     left hanging upside down in a window frame for an extended 
     period of time. Sentenced without trial in July 1992 to three 
     years; reeducation through labor for joining an ``illegal'' 
     church and having contact with foreign coreligionist. 
     Transferred a month later to a prison in Quanzhou, Fujian, 
     where he was again tortured by prison guards, who also 
     encouraged other inmates to beat him. He reportedly suffered 
     hearing loss and other disabilities as a result of the 
     torture.
       25-28. Wang Dabao, Yang Mingfen, Xu Hanrong, and Fan Zhi: 
     House-church Protestants arrested in Yingshang County, Anhui 
     province, after August 1991.
       29-31. Zhang Guancun, Zeng Shaoying, and Leng Zhaoqing: 
     House-church Protestants arrested in Funan County, Anhui 
     province, after August 1991.
       32. Mr. Dai: Bible distributor from Hubei province. 
     Arrested June 1991. No other information available.
       33. Zhang Ruiyu (or Chang Rhea-yu): Physical education 
     teacher and house-church Protestant from Xianyu County, 
     Fujian province. Fifty-four years old. In May 1990, she was 
     badly hurt during a Public Security Bureau raid on her home. 
     She was tortured with electric shocks and beatings that 
     caused her to lose several teeth. PSB officers confiscated 
     Bibles and Christian literature from her home. From that 
     point until her detention on 25 August 1990, she was harassed 
     and reportedly tortured by PSB officials. She was charged on 
     May 27, 1991, with ``inciting and propagating counter-
     revolution'' (a charge carrying a maximum sentence of life in 
     prison) and with ``disturbing seditious propaganda.'' Tried 
     April 9-10, 1991, and sentenced to four years in prison. 
     Thought to be detained in a women's prison in Fuzhou.
       34. Yang Rongfu: House-church Protestant of Anhui province. 
     Reportedly arrested before June 1990 for unspecified reasons. 
     Now prevented from seeing his family.
       35. Xu Guoxing: Shanghai house-church leader. Born March 
     16, 1955. Arrested November 6, 1989; sentenced November 18 to 
     three years' reform through labor. Currently imprisoned in 
     Defeng, Jiangsu.
       36. Xu Yonge: Leader of a hosue-church network in central 
     China and founder of ``New Birth'' Protestant Movement. 
     Fifty-two years old. From Nanyang, Zhenping County, Henan 
     province. Arrested April 16, 1988, in Beijing, where he had 
     gone to attend a worship service led by the American 
     evangelist Billy Graham. At the time of his arrest he was 
     being sought as a fugitive, having escaped from prison in 
     1983. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Held in 
     Zhenping County Prison, Henan, until April 26, 1991, and in 
     Henan Public Security Bureau office until May 20, 1991, when 
     released. He reportedly was in ill health during his 
     confinement. Remains under very strict police surveillance. 
     Possibly being forced to report periodically to the local 
     Public Security Bureau. One source reports that he was 
     released only after a relative promised to keep him from 
     resuming his religious activities.
       37. Zhu Mei (or Sha Zhumei): Born May 12, 1919. Member of 
     an independent Protestant church. Arrested June 3, 1987, in 
     Shanghai; reportedly beaten by police. Tried November 3, 
     1987, reportedly in secret; convicted of ``harboring a 
     counter-revolutionary element.'' Released on parole on April 
     3, 1992, for medical reasons stemming from torture in prison. 
     Hospitalized for two months. Remains under some travel and 
     other restrictions. Previously imprisoned for her faith 
     during Cultural Revolution.
       38-40. He Suolie, Kang Manshuang, and Du Zhangji: House-
     church leaders from Henan province. Arrested in 1985 for 
     opposing the TSPM. Sentenced in 1986 to eight, five and four 
     years in prison, respectively. Not known to have been 
     released.
       41. Song Yude: Forty years old. House-church leader from 
     Tongbo county, Henan province. Arrested July 16, 1984. Tried 
     January 29, 1986; sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for 
     ``counter-revolutionary'' activities, including holding 
     ``illegal'' religious meetings, criticizing the TSPM, and 
     setting up new house churches. Released from prison in April 
     1992. Still deprived of political rights, and possibly 
     restricted in his movements.
       42. Pei Zhongxun (Chun Chul): Seventy-six-year-old ethnic 
     Korean Protestant leader from Shanghai. Arrested in August 
     1983 for counter-revolutionary activities. Although he was 
     accused of spying for Taiwanese government (because of ties 
     to Taiwanese Christians) and of distributing Bibles and other 
     Christian literature to others in the house-church movement, 
     he was charged with ``counter-revolutionary crimes,'' a 
     charge often used in cases where the authorities do not have 
     enough evidence to convict. Sentenced to 15 years of 
     imprisonment. Currently reported imprisoned in Shanghai 
     Prison No. 2. His family is permitted to visit for one-half 
     hour each month. He reportedly has begun to suffer from 
     deteriorating eyesight due to cataracts.
       43. Wang Xincai: A 31-year-old (another source places his 
     age at 39) evangelical leader from Zhangcun (Ahandeum) 
     Village, Fuling Brigade, Xinji Commune, Lushan County, he was 
     arrested on 9 July 1983 along with
       44. Xue Guiwen: A 38-year-old evangelical from Liuzhuang 
     Village, Xinhua Brigade, Zhangdian Commune, Lushan County,
       45. Wang Baoquan: 67-year-old evangelical elder from 
     Chengguan Township, Lushan County, and
       46. Geng Minxuan: a 58-year-old (another source places his 
     age at 66) evangelical elder from Sunzhuang Village, Malon 
     Commune, Lushan County. The four men were arrested along with 
     Zhang Yunpeng, Wang Xincai and Cui Zhengshan and charged with 
     belonging to an evangelical group outside the government-
     sanctioned Three Self Patriotic Movement; plotting to 
     overthrow China's proletarian dictatorship and social system; 
     having ties to overseas reactionary forces; receiving and 
     distributing foreign materials; disturbing the social order; 
     and disturbing and breaking up normal religious activities. 
     Wang Zincai was sentenced to fifteen years in prison; Geng 
     Minxuan received an eleven-year sentence. The sentence of Xue 
     Guiwen and Wang Baoguan are unknown. All seven men were 
     sentenced on 2 June 1984, and all were deprived of their 
     political rights for five years.
       47. Bai Shuqian: Elderly member of Little Flock house 
     church from Ye County, Henan province. Arrested in 1983; 
     charged with belonging to the Shouters, holding illegal 
     religious meetings, and receiving foreign Christian 
     literature. Sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. As of March 
     1987, thought to be held in Kaifeng, Henan.
       48. Zhao Donghai: House-church leader from Henan province. 
     Sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment in 1982 or 1983 for 
     counter-revolutionary activities.
       49. Li Tian An: In his late 60s, is the most senior 
     unregistered house-church activist in Shangai. He reportedly 
     went into hiding in early January 1994 after local PSB 
     officials ordered him to report his house-church activities 
     to them on a regular basis.
       50-51. Mr. Lalling and Mr. Nawlkung: (given names unknown). 
     Reportedly arrested and jailed for distributing Christian 
     literature. Reportedly being held in the Yunan State Prison 
     near the Burmese border.
       52-54. Zhang Yongliang (43 Years old), Tian Mingge and 
     Zheng Xintai (ages unknown) were arrested along with seven 
     foreign national Christians during a 11 February 1994 raid of 
     a house near Fangcheng, Henan province, by PSB agents. 
     Earlier that day, the same house had hosted an unregistered 
     church service attended by between seventy and ninety people. 
     After their arrest, the ten were held and interrogated in the 
     Fangcheng PSB detention center. The seven foreign Christians 
     were released on 15 February 1994 and expelled from the 
     country. Tian, Zhang and Zheng continued to be held at 
     Tangcheng until their early March release. Several of the 
     foreign national Christians have stated that they could hear 
     the three being tortured at the time of their arrest.
       55-56. Wang Jiashui: a local church pastor in Huize County, 
     Yunnan Province, and He Chengzhou, and evangelist in the same 
     region, reportedly had bounties for their seizure (dead or 
     alive) placed on their heads in March or April 1992 by local 
     authorities. Other house church members in the region have 
     reported repeated occasions where they have been arrested 
     without warrants, bound, beaten with clubs, given electric 
     shocks, or heavily fined. Some detainees' homes have been 
     searched. The attacks and death threats appear to be part of 
     an organized campaign by local authorities to terrorize and 
     intimidate underground Christians in the region, which by 
     some estimates is one-third Christian.


                               buddhists

  (The following Tibetan Buddhist nuns from different monasteries are 
 currently being held in Drapchi prison. Arrested originally for their 
participation in small non-violent independence demonstrations. All of 
  their prison sentences were increased in October, 1993 because they 
  were signing songs which authorities claimed were pro-independence)

       1. Ngawang Choezom: 22 years old from Chubsang nunnery. 
     Sentence increased to a total of 11 years.
       2. Gyaltson Choezom: 21 years old. From Garu nunnery. 
     Sentence increased to a total of 9 years.
       Gyaltsen Drolkar: 19 years old. From Garu nunnery. Sentence 
     increased to a total of 12 years.
       4. Ngawang Sangdrol: 18 years old. From Garu nunnery. 
     Sentence increased to a total of 9 years.
       5. Lhundrup Znagmo: 23 years old. From Michungri nunnery. 
     Sentenced increased to a total of 9 years.
       6. Phuntsog Nyidron: 23 years old. From Michungri nunnery. 
     Sentenced increased to a total of 17 years. Given the most 
     severe sentence because of her official position as chant 
     mistress in the nunnery.
       7. Tenzin Thubten: 20 years old. From Michungri nunnery. 
     Sentence increased to a total of 14 years.
       8. Ngawang Choekyi: 23 years old. From Samdrup Drolma 
     nunnery. Sentence increased to 13 years.
       9. Ngawang Loohoe: 19 years old. Samdrup Drolma nunnery. 
     Sentence increased to 10 years.
       10. Ngawang Tsamdrol: 21 years old. From Samdrup Drolma 
     nunnery. Sentence increased to 10 years.
       11. Jigme Yangchen: 23 years old. From Shungseb nunnery. 
     Sentenced increased to 12 years.
       12. Palden Choedron: 19 years old. From Shungseb nunnery. 
     Sentence increased to 8 years.
       13. Rigzin Choekyi: 20 years old. From Shungseb nunnery. 
     Sentence increased to 12 years.
       14. Namdrol Lhamo: 28 years old. Nunnery unknown. Sentence 
     increased to 12 years.
       15-25. Eleven nuns from Garu nunnery were arrested on June 
     14, 1993 prior to a planned peaceful pro-independence 
     demonstration. The nuns range in age from 18 to 25 and 
     sentenced to prison terms from two to seven years.
       26. Phuntsog Gyaltsen: 36 years old. Tibetan Buddhist monk 
     serving 12 years in Drapchi Prison. According to Amnesty 
     International sources he is suffering liver and stomach 
     ailments but is still required to perform prison labor. He 
     has reportedly been beaten several times during his 
     imprisonment.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bacchus].
  Mr. BACCHUS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the Solomon resolution, in opposition to the Pelosi amendment, 
reluctant opposition, and in support of the Hamilton amendment and the 
President of the United States.
  This is an issue on which friends and allies on both sides of the 
aisle can and do disagree. For example, there is no one in this House 
that I admire more and there are few I admire half as much as I admire 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. She is the ideal of what 
a Representative should be and I hope her constituents in California 
realize how very well she represents them. I share her values, I share 
her goals. Yet on this issue at this time, I do not share her 
conclusions.
  In 1979 and 1980, I had the privilege of working in the office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, in helping implement our first trade 
agreement with the People's Republic of China. I have dealt with this 
issue before.
  I agree with each and every one of the criticisms that have been 
offered of the Chinese regime here on this floor today. But my 
conclusion is this: Reducing trade with China will not reduce 
oppression in China. The best way to serve the cause of human rights in 
China is to trade with the Chinese. Trade will create prosperity, 
prosperity will create a Chinese middle class, a growing middle class 
in China will demand more and more and more political freedom and more 
freedom will help secure more human rights.
  A vote for the Hamilton amendment is by far the best vote for human 
rights.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Solomon resolution.
  I would just like to make a couple of points.
  Trade restrictions are successful only when they are universally 
observed. Leaky sanctions do not work--as we can see now in Haiti, 
Serbia, and North Korea.
  And in the case of China MFN, we are the only country in the world 
considering trade sanctions. Not one G-7 or Asian nation is following 
suit.
  The China MFN debate is not about far-reaching international policy. 
Simply put, it is about involving ourselves in the internal affairs of 
another country.
  Could you imagine if another country sought to impose trade sanctions 
on us because of our nagging crime problem? At the very least, we would 
laugh at them.
  History shows us that political freedom is invariably tied to 
economic prosperity. It is basic human nature. If you have to spend all 
of your time and energy, providing your family with food, clothing, 
shelter and basic economic security, you are less inclined to ponder 
the finer points of political theory, such as democracy and freedom of 
speech.
  Thus, the best way for us to combat political repression and foster 
human rights is to engage them economically. By trying to inflict harm 
on the Chinese economy, we only foster an environment more prone to 
political repression.
  Sanctions are only useful when they seek to improve international 
relations. A completely different set of rules apply when we look to 
shape a country's internal policies and culture.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Solomon resolution.

                              {time}  1540

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Solomon amendment and commend him and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] and others who have worked on this. I also rise in support, in 
case I am not able to speak later, in behalf of the Pelosi amendment 
and I commend her for all of her effort on behalf of oppressed people 
throughout the world, but also her campaign on behalf of Chinese 
dissidents, workers and those who are subject to the political system.
  I think we should remember that it is not just that we bestow most-
favored-nation status on the nation of China, but when we do so in 
reaction to what has taken place, and with knowledge of what has taken 
place in China, and with knowledge of what has taken place since the 
President's Executive order when they did nothing to try and to comply 
with that order, that that is the only reason we are here today. Had 
the Chinese made a reasonable effort to comply with the President's 
Executive order there would be no need for the Solomon amendment or for 
the Pelosi amendment. We in fact would have had a unified policy and we 
would have had a response from the Chinese people that good-faith 
efforts were being made in the total of their efforts in a number of 
those areas outlined by the President.
  But we are here today because the Chinese rejected it out of hand. 
They rejected it on the world stage, the President of the United States 
and the country.
  So if we do not accept the Solomon amendment or the Pelosi amendment 
we grant them far more than most-favored-nation status, because people 
who are oppressed around the world, who have lost their religious 
freedoms, do not have the right to organize in their workplace, 
children who are subject to child labor, prisoners who are abused and 
used in labor for exports, those people have only one place to look in 
the world, and that is the United States. What we do by our actions of 
extending most-favored-nation status to China is we loan them our 
principles, our symbols, our culture, our history, and we ought not to 
cheapen those principles and our history by giving away most-favored-
nation status.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given premission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Solomon 
amendment and the Pelosi amendment and in support of the Hamilton 
amendment. I do so reluctantly because I have a great deal of respect 
for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], two Members of Congress who I greatly admire, 
who I work with legislatively and who are certainly some of the most 
popular Members of this Congress. But the legislation is not about 
popularity. It is not a question of popularity.
  It is not a question of who stands with that gentleman that stood 
down that column of tanks; 435 of us in the House of Representatives 
stand with that person. We admire his courage.
  The question is not one about who can condemn the heinous actions at 
Tiananmen Square; 435 of us in the body condemn what the Chinese 
Government did on that day in 1989.
  The question is not, ladies and gentlemen, about who thinks that the 
gulags and the forced labor in China are wrong; 435 of us think that 
that policy is wrong.
  The question is a very difficult one today, especially, and the 
question is this: How do we craft a foreign policy that achieves 
workable and effective change in China? That is the difficult question 
in today's environment. I am afraid if we pass Solomon and Pelosi that 
we now have a two- or three-tier system of human rights. We treat 
Burma, and Mexico, and China, and South Africa all differently. We do 
not treat them the same.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Solomon resolution and to 
express my strong support for the Hamilton substitute, which the House 
will be considering next.
  I applaud both Representive Solomon and Representive Pelosi for their 
tireless campaign to improve human rights in China. Yet, the sad 
reality is that revoking MFN would actually subject the cause of human 
rights, and would result in the inability of the United States to 
influence any Chinese regime. President Clinton understands this 
rationale, and it prompted him to modify his approach to China MFN his 
year.
  Unfortunately, MFN is no longer the vehicle by which we can achieve 
our human rights prerogatives. China's economy has evolved to a point 
at which United States efforts to bully Chinese leaders has long since 
past. Removing MFN status would certainly hurt the Chinese economy for 
months or years but, given China's rapid integration with other Asian 
economies and its growing trade with the European Community, such a 
blow would not be permanent. Such a blow, however, would prove to be 
irrevocably disastrous to U.S. business and economic interests.
  I support President Clinton's new comprehensive China policy, which 
is encompassed in the Hamilton substitute the House will consider 
today. I believe that it will bring long-term stability to our 
relations with China and establish consistency to our worldwide MFN 
trade policy.
  We must stop singling-out China with annual threats of MFN revocation 
because of human rights abuses. The United States extends permanent MFN 
status to Burma, one of the most intolerant and repressive countries in 
Asia, if not the world. Yet, every year we scrutinize China's policy. 
We cannot have two or three tier human rights policies in reflected 
foreign policy. We cannot treat Burma one way, Mexico another way, and 
China a third way.
  Finally, from a geopolitical standpoint, it would be detrimental to 
our hard-won diplomatic and economic accomplishments in the East Asian 
region if they revoke China's MFN status. With the entire East Asian 
region becoming more and more economically integrated as never before, 
the United States can ill afford to disengage from this region and its 
potential partners at this critical junction. Even Taiwan, China's 
long-time rival, strongly supports the unconditional extension of MFN 
to China.
  I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the Solomon resolution and 
Pelosi bill. The Hamilton substitute is the only workable approach to 
improving human rights in China.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard that ``consistency is the hobgloblin of 
small minds,'' and I think that explains the administration promoting 
free trade with regard to China and clobber Haiti with economic 
sanctions. And we all know the consequences of those economic sanctions 
in Haiti. They are not effecting the change on the tyrants in power, 
they are providing enormous hurt to the Haitian people.
  By contrast, the promotion of free enterprise on that Chinese 
mainland has improved the human conditions for literally hundreds of 
millions of Chinese people, and it is growing steadily and 
dramatically, the most dramatic on the face of the Earth. We should all 
remember John Kennedy's counsel: A rising tide lifts all boats. Promote 
a rising tide in terms of economics on the mainland, and we all and the 
rest of the world will all be beneficiaries thereof.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, since we decoupled our trade policy 
from human rights discussion, China has become more repressive. We need 
to make sure that the Chinese regime understands absolutely that we do 
not treat bloody dictatorships in the same way that we treat democratic 
nations.
  Those people who are suggesting that we continue most-favored-nation 
status right now tell us that something will happen by magic, all of a 
sudden we will reach a critical mass because there has been so much 
trade going on, and the prosperity has increased that the people then 
will demand freedom, and communism and dictatorship will crumble. That 
is absolute nonsense.
  We decoupled our human rights policy with our trading policy and we 
have more repression right now. The fact is Nazi Germany did not have a 
great human rights program simply because they were a prosperous 
Western country.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the President's 
policy to extend most-favored-nation status for China, and in 
opposition to House Joint Resolution 373, the Solomon resolution, and 
H.R. 4590, the Pelosi bill.
  The President correctly puts the issue in his letter of August 4 to 
the Speaker:

       ``When you vote on China * * *. You will advance a policy 
     that will carry us into the next century. In that century, 
     China likely will develop the world's largest economy, help 
     determine whether nuclear weapons proliferate to unstable 
     regions, grapple with the world's largest pollution problems. 
     And of course, China will decide whether to join or to buck 
     the global community--safeguarding internationally recognized 
     human rights for its citizens. The question you must ask is 
     what approach promotes all of these U.S. interests.''

  For me, the answer is to extend MFN without restrictions and take 
collateral measures including those outlined in the Hamilton substitute 
to help China improve its human rights policy.
  I agree with my friend and colleague from California, Ms. Pelosi, 
that human rights is an important component of China-United States 
relations, and I respect her tireless efforts to promote 
democratization and peace in that region. However, we must not forget 
that human rights is one of several critical issues that must be 
considered, including: China's cooperation on North Korea and regional 
security, arms proliferation, narcotics trade, alien smuggling, and the 
opportunity to create United States jobs through increased trade.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am particularly 
concerned about proliferation. United States policy toward China must 
address this issue. To curb Chinese arms sales, the Department of 
Defense has established a joint commission on defense conversion to 
encourage the production of civilian rather than military products. I 
support this concept for China because its need to export weapons will 
diminish through commercialization of its industries.
  This program would also facilitate joint ventures between United 
States businesses and Chinese defense firms willing to convert to 
civilian production. Economic liberalization is an essential ingredient 
for political democratization and adherence to internationally 
recognized human rights. The recent growth of export-oriented free 
enterprise in southern coastal China has already spurred economic 
reform and weakened Beijing's influence on that region. DOD's program 
may act as a catalyst to these reforms, and we in Congress should give 
it our full support.
  In a recent letter to the Speaker of the House, Secretary of Defense 
William Perry said that if H.R. 4590 is passed,

       China could decide to take a number of steps to undermine 
     important U.S. security interests, including: distancing 
     itself from U.S. policy on North Korea, blocking a sanctions 
     resolution at the United Nations, or raising tensions over 
     U.S.-Taiwan policy, or undertaking destabilizing arms sales.

  H.R. 4590 would also impose unworkable and unenforceable sanctions 
against goods produced by the Chinese army, defense-related 
enterprises, and state-owned enterprises. This approach does not 
reflect the reality of China's economy, in which there is no clear 
distinction between state-owned and private enterprises. The 
Commissioner of U.S. customs predicts an enforcement nightmare if the 
Pelosi bill were to become law.
  It is not clear that human rights conditions in China would improve 
under H.R. 4590. A more likely consequence is a virulent trade war that 
will foil the exportation of $9 billion in United States goods to 
China.
  Mr. Speaker, continued United States-China relations are essential to 
our mutual economic benefit and to international peace and stability. 
The President's decision to pursue human rights efforts delinked from 
MFN and in the context of a broader United States-China relations is 
prudent policy. By revoking or partially revoking MFN status for China, 
Congress would undermine important United States security interests, 
and would ultimately damage United States credibility in this region. I 
therefore urge my colleagues to vote against House Joint Resolution 373 
and H.R. 4590.

                              {time}  1550

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
New York has the right to close. The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui] has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] for his closing statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The debate this afternoon on revoking China MFN status is really not 
a debate about whether there shall be trade with China or there shall 
not be trade with China. It is not a debate about whether we will be 
isolationist toward China or whether we will be engaged. We are 
engaged.
  The question is, What are the terms of that engagement? Why should 
the United States grant red-carpet treatment to China when China does 
not grant the same treatment to us? Even with MFN, which is our most-
favored-nation tariff treatment, the lowest possible treatment we could 
give any nation in the world, the cheapest way for them to get in our 
market, they will keep their tariff 10 times as high against this 
country. I do not consider that reciprocity.
  Why should the United States grant red-carpet treatment to China when 
no other nation in the world grants them this type of treatment? One-
third, nearly 40 percent, of China's exports now come here. Only 2 
percent of our exports go there.
  They are a nation of 1 billion people. We are a nation of 250 million 
people. The scales are not balanced, my friends.
  Japan does not offer them that treatment. Germany does not give them 
most-favored-nation treatment. France does not give them that 
treatment. Mexico does not. The rest of Asia does not. Why do we 
continue to do this to the people of the United States of Amercia? Why 
should we give them this red-carpet treatment when it is going to cost 
us $180 million in lost tariff revenue at a time of very high deficits? 
Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why are we doing this to ourselves?
  Most importantly, why should the United States grant another benefit, 
another trading benefit to China, a nation that is essentially 
undemocratic in its practices? It is beyond my comprehension why in 
this post-cold-war era the United States cannot stand tall for free 
enterprise and democracy-building simultaneously.
  We always seem to take it out of the hide of our own people.
  So the real debate today is to vote yes on Solomon and yes on Pelosi 
to revoke most-favored-nation treatment and make China behave like all 
the rest of the nations in the world.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield 1 minute, the balance of 
our time, to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Cantwell].
  (Ms. CANTWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, between now and the year 2000, China is 
expected to import products worth $1 trillion. Last year, exports from 
Washington State to China totaled $2.2 billion, and supported more than 
40,000 jobs. In the next 15 years, it is estimated that China will need 
800 new aircraft worth $40 billion.
  The potential market in china is enormous. Trade sanctions will only 
result in a vicious cycle of retaliation, leading to the closure of the 
largest emerging market in the world and the loss of American jobs.
  I understand and respect the arguments on the other side of this 
issue. I believe, however, that the promotion of human rights in China 
can best be achieved through an expanded strategy of comprehensive 
engagement with China. Most important, we must remain engaged 
economically. By doing so, we will be encouraging the economic reforms 
already occurring in China.
  The economic transformation of China has led to a rising middle 
class, which is quietly challenging centralized control of the Chinese 
Communist party. The enforcement of economic rights is spilling over 
into the recognition of individual rights under the law. Limiting 
United States trade with China will only serve to undermine our best 
hope for fundamental, lasting human-rights progress in China. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the Solomon resolution.
  If the Chinese retaliate against United States products, as they 
surely will if MFN is revoked, our international competitors will 
quickly step in. The potential market for U.S. exports will shrink, and 
U.S. jobs will be lost.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the shirt I am wearing was made in Glens Falls, NY. It 
cost $20. It is a very nice shirt. If we revoke MFN for China and hike 
the tariffs, shirts coming from there will cost $8 and $10, and they 
still are going to sell for 50 percent less than the shirt I am 
wearing. How can our people compete?
  You know, trying to woo China into the club of civilized nations by 
treating her as just another trading partner has failed, as has the 
President's policy. I wish it had not.
  Now, we are faced with a situation where the executive branch is 
delinking most-favored-nation treatment from human rights and other 
issues such as trade and proliferation policies. That action is a 
signal to all of the oppressed people around this world that America no 
longer cares. That message may be unintentional, but that is the signal 
we will be sending, that America is more interested in the almighty 
dollar than we are in helping to free human beings from the tyranny of 
communism.
  My colleagues, the world respects the United States of America 
because we stand for something, something different and something good. 
America is not just a people. It is not just a race. It is not a 
religion. America is a set of ideals. In short, America has always 
espoused the philosophy that human beings should live as free 
individuals, unfettered by intrusive or repressive governments. These 
ideals define the very essence of who we Americans are.
  If we allow ourselves to succumb to the temptations to be just like 
everybody else or to do business as usual with any dictator, we will 
lose the essence of our ideals. We will lose who we are. It is simply a 
fact that if America will not stand up to this kind of tyranny and 
oppression, nobody will. Since military solutions are often unrealistic 
or undesirable, trade remains the best weapon we have to stand up to 
these inhumane philosophies that have no respect for treating people as 
decent human beings.
  We have an opportunity. We must apply leverage where we can in order 
to defend freedom, to deter aggression, and, yes, to protect American 
jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, when a regime destroys American jobs by 
refusing to allow fair access to American goods, America has to say no 
to business as usual.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the measure to cut MFN off. We 
can reestablish it in 6 days, 60 days, or 6 months, but let us send the 
message that we will not stand for this kind of treatment for human 
beings.
  Should my resolution fail, I would urge strong support for the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. She has a 
reasonable alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. This 
drastic action will seriously hurt American jobs, exports, and 
businesses.
  I am very concerned about the serious violations of human rights in 
China. We, as a democratic Nation, must be concerned about China's 
treatment of its people. We must condemn any violations of human 
rights.
  However, denying most-favored-nation status will certainly not 
improve human rights. On the contrary, the average Chinese citizen will 
suffer. We must recognize that the rights of Chinese people have now 
were brought about by economic reforms and American investment--not by 
political pressure.
  An important question for us to ask is if we deny China most-favored-
nation status who would suffer? First and foremost would be the Chinese 
people. Our trade with China gives economic opportunities to the common 
people of China that has enabled them to improve their lives and built 
a growing middle class. A middle class that believes in capitalism, not 
communism. Denying the Chinese people continued exposure to democracy 
and capitalism will only weaken human rights in China.
  Second, we would be hurting our own people. China is the biggest 
potential market for many important American exports. I am especially 
concerned about the impact of this resolution on California's key 
aerospace industry. The United States enjoys a 76 percent share of the 
Chinese market. China's aerospace imports support 40,000 American jobs. 
We have an aerospace trade surplus with China of $2 billion and a 
future sales estimate of $40 billion in new, American aircraft.
  The Chinese don't have to buy American and if this bill passes, I 
know they won't. Our aerospace competitors in Europe, Japan, and Russia 
are ready to step in if we foolishly step out. American jobs and 
competitiveness will be lost. Passage of this resolution will seriously 
hurt the American economy at this very critical time of recovery.
  The best way to promote successful political reform in China is to 
pursue economic liberalization and increased trade with the United 
States. Human rights will improve through positive engagement--not by 
abandoning the Chinese people. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this flawed resolution.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, when this body last voted on the Solomon 
resolution, it was not an action vote, it was a message-sending vote. 
We knew the President would veto the legislation if it passed, and we 
were all simply sending a message to the Chinese leadership that 
carried no possibility of harm to trade with China, to the growing 
private enterprise sector of the Chinese economy, to our friends in 
Hong Kong, or to United States business interests established or being 
established in the new Chinese economy.
  All that has changed. The message sending was needed, because our 
President never expressed the outrage of the American people with 
Tiananmen or with ongoing human rights abuses in Tibet or of the rights 
of the Chinese people to speak or worship or assemble as they might 
choose. Congress provided the vehicle to send those messages and did so 
well.
  But now we must assess the result of our actions not the need for our 
expression. Will cutting off MFN actually hurt the cause of human 
rights in China? Will it undermine free enterprise, the very principles 
we wish to foster in the certain understanding that political rights 
inevitably follow economic and are economic rights are well grounded, 
ultimately cannot be contained. Will it mean our values will be 
excluded from the Chinese marketplace and our influence toward greater 
human rights in China wane? Will it hurt our business interests in 
south China and in Hong Kong?
  Will it mean our influence toward working with China to contain North 
Korea's nuclear ambitions will be terminated? All of these are likely 
results if MFN is cut off entirely.
  For these reasons I cannot and will not support the Solomon 
resolution, though clearly I share deeply the concern of those that do 
for the rights of the Chinese people.
  For reasons I will explain in debate, I will support the Pelosi 
measure that, in my judgment raises none of the untoward results of 
Solomon and aims at the state sector of the Chinese economy and at 
slave-trade where MFN for China can have no justification whatever.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 509 and sections 152 and 153 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.

                              {time}  1600

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The question is on 
the passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the eyes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 75, 
nays 356, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 381]

                                YEAS--75

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Baker (CA)
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Evans
     Everett
     Fields (LA)
     Fish
     Frank (MA)
     Gilman
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Horn
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Klink
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Markey
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Molinari
     Nadler
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Quillen
     Ridge
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walker
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Wolf

                               NAYS--356

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Clyburn
     Ravenel
     Washington

                              {time}  1621

  Mr. SHARP and Mr. GEKAS changed their vote from ``yes'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. McKinney changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________